Bush Ideology is a Health Hazard

In the SST forum, users are free to discuss philosophy, music, art, religion, sock colour, whatever. It's a haven from the madness of Bulldrek; alternately intellectual and mundane, this is where the controversy takes place.
User avatar
Anguirel
Freeman of the Crimson Assfro
Posts: 2278
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 12:04 pm
Location: City of Angels

Bush Ideology is a Health Hazard

Post by Anguirel »

If this story is true (which I haven't verified yet), then the Bush Administration's stances are beginning to seriously threaten almost all aspects of scientific research. This is one small portion, but once they've strangled the CDC from producing any useful literature on, you know, ways to prevent diseases that don't include "Don't go where diseases might be" as the only advice, they might move on to, say, removing evolution from the national curriculum. Want to teach it? Fine, you forfeit your entire school district's federal funding. Not enough pressure? Why not make it the entire state's (see the old methods for enforcing the federal 55 mph speed limit "suggestion")?

I'm about ready to change my mind in the Taxation thread because of this. The use of taxes or federal funding to encourage (read: force) certain behaviors needs some serious safeguards to prevent this sort of abuse.

Further, they're removing anyone who speaks against it and replacing them with yes men. Hell with a potential Theocracy in Iraq, we may be faced with one in the U.S. shortly, if not already here.

Caveats: This article is, quite obviously, heavily biased. I'd love to see more objective information on the changes that have happened. I'll reserve final judgement until I can find some (or someone else finds it for me), but this seems to be some rather important shit going down, and I suspect many people here might be interested in it.

Selected Quotes:
Meanwhile, across the pond, the US government's strategy for disease prevention was hardly in tune with the philosophy that has taken root around the world – and so masterfully expressed by the Brits: Give people accurate, comprehensive information and services, and they are more likely to stay healthy. Instead of finding similarly clever ways to disseminate such information to the American public, the Bush administration was actively trying to censor it.

The most blatant attack was the severe gutting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) fact sheet on condoms, which had been disappeared from the website in July 2001 and replaced, with significant battle scars, in December 2002. Pre-Bush, the fact sheet had encouraged consistent condom use, advice supported by vast bodies of scientific research that show condoms to be 98-100 percent effective in preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. "The primary reason that condoms sometimes fail," read the original fact sheet, "is incorrect or inconsistent use, not failure of the condoms itself." Following that statement was user-friendly guidance on proper use.

Now, according to the once nonpartisan CDC, abstinence is the "surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases." Along with the condom "how to," the CDC removed the "Programs that Work" section, which summarized several large studies of teenagers that found no increase or hastening of sexual activity among those who were taught about condoms.
In middle and high schools across the country, teachers are being directed to adhere to the Federal Definition of Abstinence-Only Education, which requires that a program teach, among other things, that "a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity" and that any other sexual activity "is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects." By law, teachers cannot "promote or endorse" condoms or show adolescents how to use them, nor can they recognize any relationship outside of heterosexual marriage. Rebecca Schleifer, an HIV/AIDS researcher at Human Rights Watch, led a study of abstinence-only programs in Texas and calls them nothing less than "censorship."

...

Another facet of the McLennan program is television commercials. One shows a dad telling his son to use condoms followed by a voiceover warning, "Condoms will not protect people from many sexually transmitted diseases, and you could be spreading lies to your children." Schleifer spoke to counselors and teachers who heard from teens, including one who was an active intravenous drug user, who said they no longer bothered using condoms because they'd heard on TV they didn't work.
Even the scientific community – a group that usually hovers above the political fray – began shoring up its own defenses as it came to light last fall that the Department of Health and Human Services was purging scientific advisory committees of scientists whose research might undermine the Bush administration's political goals, and replacing them with thinly credentialed ideologues, who, for instance, agree with raising permissible levels of lead in drinking water and oppose workplace ergonomic standards.

The Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS is another major battleground. Its co-chair, Tom Coburn, has accused the director of the CDC of "lying" about condom safety and asked that he be fired. These actions prompted scathing editorials in prestigious journals and sharp statements from groups like the American Public Health Association. According to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, committees must be "fairly balanced" and "not inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority." Donald Kennedy, editor of Science, referenced this law in rebuking the administration: "It would be a good idea for HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson and the White House Personnel Office to read the law, and then follow it."
Bush's censorious activities seem to be gaining momentum, but the strategy was evident on his very first day in office, when he reinstated the "global gag rule" (or Mexico City Policy), which literally gags any foreign recipient of US family planning funds from so much as uttering the word "abortion," even where it is legal and even if they use their own funds to do so. The Center for Reproductive Rights (formerly the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy) is suing the Bush administration for violating the first amendment rights of its American attorneys working overseas and calls the policy "government sanctioned censorship – plain and simple."
complete. dirty. whore.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
User avatar
Serious Paul
Devil
Posts: 6644
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm

Post by Serious Paul »

Anguirel said:

The use of taxes or federal funding to encourage (read: force) certain behaviors needs some serious safeguards to prevent this sort of abuse.
Amen brother. I am all about limiting the size of the government, and a lot of what it does.
In middle and high schools across the country, teachers are being directed to adhere to the Federal Definition of Abstinence-Only Education, which requires that a program teach, among other things, that "a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity" and that any other sexual activity "is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects."
*Sigh*

And we wonder why our kids grow up to make so many bad choices...sheer lack of education dooms us from the start...

Although it brings me to this question-Is it the Schools responsibility to teach kids about sex?

I mean I wish we could count on parents, but I realize it ain't so.
Schleifer spoke to counselors and teachers who heard from teens, including one who was an active intravenous drug user, who said they no longer bothered using condoms because they'd heard on TV they didn't work.
"Because I'm high and stupid?"

"TV said its oka/not okay."

Fucking pathetic.
Bush's censorious...
Tobe fair these people have been here for a while, Bush didn't just import them.
User avatar
ThatWendigo
Bulldrekker
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 2:45 am
Location: Doissetep

Post by ThatWendigo »

*reads more things he's already seen before*

I don't even need to comment on this.
_"Men are never convinced of your reasons, of your sincerity, of the seriousness of your sufferings, except by your death. So long as you are alive, your case is doubtful; you have a right only to your skepticism. "<br>
-Albert Camus
User avatar
Salvation122
Grand Marshall of the Imperium
Posts: 3776
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Memphis, TN

Post by Salvation122 »

Interesting, but not worth getting up in arms over.
Image
User avatar
Anguirel
Freeman of the Crimson Assfro
Posts: 2278
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 12:04 pm
Location: City of Angels

Post by Anguirel »

Serious Paul wrote:
Bush's censorious...
To be fair these people have been here for a while, Bush didn't just import them.
Sure, some of them. But it's at least implied that the people against these policies are being replaced by people who won't oppose the policies - so, in effect, yes Bush (or the Administration at large - I'm trying to avoid laying this all on the Prez directly) did just import them.
Salvation122 wrote:Interesting, but not worth getting up in arms over.
When would it be worth getting up in arms over it? When all the disease fact-sheets say "The only prevention is to lock yourself in a bubble until you enter into a heterosexual monogamous marriage, and then only ever have direct contact with that one partner" and completely fail to mention any forms of medication or treatment other than prayer? When evolution is actually gagged? Maybe when those people who talk about women having an equal place in society are hounded by federal investigators? When the anti-flag-burning amendment passes? When the House Un-American Activities Committee reconvenes?

I don't mind the new push for abstinence education, but forcibly restricting information because it might reduce the impact of your message (note that the evidence points to the exact opposite effect) seems to be a poorly conceived idea. Worse, they've got those ads which not only push for their view, but detract from the others.

More (biased) accounts.
Another article.
complete. dirty. whore.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
User avatar
Cain
Knight of the Imperium
Posts: 3233
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 2:35 am

Post by Cain »

Out of idle curiousity, what is worth getting "up in arms" over?

SP: While I agree that parents should be responsible for their kids sexual education, and I dearly wish parents had the time to be more involved with their kids' education in general, it just doesn't happen. With the average household needing two full-time incomes to support children, parents simply don't have time to participate.

Ideally, however, parents should be reading up on the latest research, and explaining it to their kids. Since parents have enough on their plate as is, it's now up to the schools to make sure kids have an education that's based in rigourous science. This applies for sex as well, despite all the implications involved. Parents simply don't have the time to do the research.
User avatar
Serious Paul
Devil
Posts: 6644
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm

Post by Serious Paul »

A shame though isn't it?
User avatar
Cain
Knight of the Imperium
Posts: 3233
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 2:35 am

Post by Cain »

SP: Doesn't change the fact that things need to get done. Someone's got to educate kids about sex, and while bemoaning the lack of parental involvement may be a good pastime, it's not very helpful to solving the problem.

I've heard that abstinince-only programs are not effective, or are not as effective as a safe-sex approach, in reducing teen STD and pregnancy rates. I found one article by the Heritage foundation, but we can safely assume they have a bias.

This article suggests that absitinince programs are leaving far too much out, especially the risks of oral sex. This article, by the American Association of Pediatrics, suggests that Abstinince-only programs do not work at all by themselves, only when combined with other methods. This one, was written by the same doctor who gave the heritage foundation their "10 sucessful abstinence programs" through his studies, so he's probably as impartial as we'll find.

Looking through all the data, it seems that the Abstinence-Only crowd keeps referring back to the Heritage Foundation article, which derives it's hard numbers from the same doctor who provided my third link. Since the link goes to his latest findings, I'm going to say that we have ample evidence that abstinence-only programs do not work.
User avatar
Anguirel
Freeman of the Crimson Assfro
Posts: 2278
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 12:04 pm
Location: City of Angels

Post by Anguirel »

Cain wrote:Ideally, however, parents should be reading up on the latest research, and explaining it to their kids. Since parents have enough on their plate as is, it's now up to the schools to make sure kids have an education that's based in rigourous science. This applies for sex as well, despite all the implications involved. Parents simply don't have the time to do the research.
This is part of my problem with the changes implemented by the Bush Administration. The information a saavy parent might want used to be on the CDC pages. It's now gone because it contradicts the Abstinence-Only message. They can't even have it fucking available anymore.
complete. dirty. whore.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
User avatar
Serious Paul
Devil
Posts: 6644
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm

Post by Serious Paul »

I don't disagree Cain, i was just lamenting the current state of the world.

My wife and I have had this arguement a lot. When do we talk to them? How? How often? What do we say? Why?

We want the best for our kids. the answers aren't always easy.
User avatar
3278
No-Life Loser
Posts: 10224
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 8:51 pm

Post by 3278 »

Like everyone else here, I think Sal's a little crazy in this case, but I always think that when science is on the line.

Of course, this has nothing at all to do with Bush; he's sort of the enabler in this case, but he's not the one pushing the buttons. Just like the Far Left, the Far Right needs to be stuffed into a cannon and shot into the sun.

That said, I have a hard time just saying, "Well, parents aren't going to do it, so the government has to." Every time the government takes a responsibility away, they take a right away. And we just keep /giving/ them away, because we don't want to deal with it ourselves. We're all to happy to make the government solve our problems for us, and then blame them when something goes wrong. When are we going to take responsibility for ourselves? If we act like children, the government will always treat us like children.

This is one of the hardest cases I know of, though, because the fact is, education /is/ the key, and open and honest education. Parents aren't giving it, because they're idiots like everyone else, and at some point, we have to give up on them.

It's an amazing time to be alive. I keep telling everyone I know anecdotes about the past, and the bizarre things people believed in the face of overwhelming evidence. We're living in a time when rational thought is finally overwhelming race, religion, nationality, idiology. And we go through our growing pains, of course, and some people will always be further ahead than others. But did you know that until 1961, no one knew that medication taken by pregant women effected the foetus? It wasn't until a persistant West German scientist discovered that the only thing that the mothers of thousands of so-called "flipper babies" had in common was the new wonderdrug Thalidomide that it was discovered medications taken by pregnant women could effect the development of their children.

So I'm happy to be alive now, and I'll be happier still to be alive in another 40 years, but in the meantime, we do have to continually be vigilant to make certain that the next 40 years lead in the direction of rationality, as the last 100,000 have.
User avatar
Gunny
SMITE!™ Grand Master
Posts: 8804
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2002 1:25 pm
Location: Chi-town

Post by Gunny »

"flipper baby"?

*does some googl-ing* hmm... flipper sex... flipper- baby foot.... baby sex :wideeyes ... and some flipper baby sites I can't access cuz my server sucks.

mmkay, let's try Thalidomide... AH HA!!! oOoo... nasty stuff there.
<center><b><font size=1><font color="#FF9900">"Invaders blood marches through my veins, like giant radioactive rubber pants! The pants command me! Do not ignore my veins!" -Zim</font></font></b></center>
User avatar
Cain
Knight of the Imperium
Posts: 3233
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 2:35 am

Post by Cain »

3278 wrote:Of course, this has nothing at all to do with Bush; he's sort of the enabler in this case, but he's not the one pushing the buttons. Just like the Far Left, the Far Right needs to be stuffed into a cannon and shot into the sun.
Not too much argument here, only to add that Bush's personal beliefs are what's pushing things in this direction. If he weren't so vehement on always getting his way, things wouldn't be so scary. After watching the gathering of diplomatic support for Iraq, and the way he's trying to get support for his tax cuts, I have to wonder if he doesn't think of himself as Benevolent King Bush the Second.
That said, I have a hard time just saying, "Well, parents aren't going to do it, so the government has to." Every time the government takes a responsibility away, they take a right away. And we just keep /giving/ them away, because we don't want to deal with it ourselves. We're all to happy to make the government solve our problems for us, and then blame them when something goes wrong. When are we going to take responsibility for ourselves? If we act like children, the government will always treat us like children.

This is one of the hardest cases I know of, though, because the fact is, education /is/ the key, and open and honest education. Parents aren't giving it, because they're idiots like everyone else, and at some point, we have to give up on them.
Let's be fair. Parents don't have the time to do the job properly. Even the well-informed and educated ones-- heck, especially those ones-- fret over rather or not they've spent enough time on the subject with their kids.

And when it comes to learning facts, and thinking critically, that's also part of what schools are supposed to be doing. While sex ed is charged with many emotional issues, strip them away and you still need to give kids honest, straight facts and the ability to intrepret them correctly. Even if we're not able to do the job, that doesn't mean we can allow the schools to teach kids incorrect science, or incorretly explain hos said science affects them.
User avatar
3278
No-Life Loser
Posts: 10224
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 8:51 pm

Post by 3278 »

Cain wrote:
3278 wrote:Of course, this has nothing at all to do with Bush; he's sort of the enabler in this case, but he's not the one pushing the buttons. Just like the Far Left, the Far Right needs to be stuffed into a cannon and shot into the sun.
Not too much argument here, only to add that Bush's personal beliefs are what's pushing things in this direction.
Mmm, I would say, "allowing things to move in this direction." Just as every Republican president does. That's why I have less against Bush than a lot of people; he's just the tip of the sword. If he's better at it than others, it's because the sword never changes; the tip, the edge, these are honed away, always sharper, always stronger. It's the sword I hate, not the craftsmanship.
Cain wrote:After watching the gathering of diplomatic support for Iraq, and the way he's trying to get support for his tax cuts, I have to wonder if he doesn't think of himself as Benevolent King Bush the Second.
By which you mean you have to wonder if he doesn't think he's correct? I mean, what, exactly, do you have against someone who tries very hard to get done what they believe in? If you agreed with him, you'd call him a hero, for finally getting your agenda heard, just as the far right is. Blame away, but only where it's due; don't fault him for having strong convictions.
Cain wrote:
3278 wrote:This is one of the hardest cases I know of, though, because the fact is, education /is/ the key, and open and honest education. Parents aren't giving it, because they're idiots like everyone else, and at some point, we have to give up on them.
Let's be fair. Parents don't have the time to do the job properly.
Let's be honest; parents don'ttakethe time to do the job properly.
Cain wrote:...fret over rather or not...
Whether or not.
Cain wrote:And when it comes to learning facts, and thinking critically, that's also part of what schools are supposed to be doing. While sex ed is charged with many emotional issues, strip them away and you still need to give kids honest, straight facts and the ability to intrepret them correctly.
Absolutely, and I think that kids should be taught about human reproduction in biology class, along with the reproduction of everyone else. Parents should be made aware of exactly what's being taught, and reminded that this would be an appropriate time to also teach children about the non-scientific elements of reproduction. But that portion of the class should be no more elective than any other portion of it.
User avatar
Anguirel
Freeman of the Crimson Assfro
Posts: 2278
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 12:04 pm
Location: City of Angels

Post by Anguirel »

3278 wrote:That said, I have a hard time just saying, "Well, parents aren't going to do it, so the government has to."
Another problem with what's happening. This isn't simply ceasing Sex Ed and putting it back in the hands of parents. It's continuing it (so parents might think it's being covered properly) but giving out incomplete (at best) information on the subject. A little information may well be more dangerous than none, since it means that those involved are less likely to do any research on their own (not that they would have anyways, but now there's no reason for them to do so... they've already been taught all that, right?)
complete. dirty. whore.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
User avatar
ThatWendigo
Bulldrekker
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 2:45 am
Location: Doissetep

Post by ThatWendigo »

Of course, this has nothing at all to do with Bush; he's sort of the enabler in this case, but he's not the one pushing the buttons.
I'm still torn on exactly how much say Bush has in things. On the one hand, I find it a terrifying prospect that someone could be put in such a high office, without being the one controlling what he does. At the same time, it would let me forgive him some of the things that have happened, to a degree.
So I'm happy to be alive now, and I'll be happier still to be alive in another 40 years, but in the meantime, we do have to continually be vigilant to make certain that the next 40 years lead in the direction of rationality, as the last 100,000 have.
I think it hardly needs to be said that the people who are influencing Bush probably do not have that as their main goal.
And when it comes to learning facts, and thinking critically, that's also part of what schools are supposed to be doing.
Am I the only one who feels that the American educational system has completely changed focus from being in the business of education to being in the business of churning out minimally capable workers?

It just seems that we're so much more intent on test scores, standardization, and regurgitation, rather than any real education. People may be able to do basic math, but can they explain how it works? They might be able to tell you how rain forms, but do they know how that's linked to more fundamental principles of science? Can they read a passage and tell you about metaphor in words that aren't taken from Cliff notes?

My experience with many of my contemporaries, even in college, is a sad, pathetic "no."
Mmm, I would say, "allowing things to move in this direction." Just as every Republican president does. That's why I have less against Bush than a lot of people; he's just the tip of the sword. If he's better at it than others, it's because the sword never changes; the tip, the edge, these are honed away, always sharper, always stronger. It's the sword I hate, not the craftsmanship.
This is something I never really considered, until the last few years. It took the 2000 election scandal to get me to dig into political backgrounds and appointments, and I was a little shell-shocked at first. Now, I am probably out the other side, and too cycnical, but I'd rather be there than sucking CNN's cock.
I mean, what, exactly, do you have against someone who tries very hard to get done what they believe in?
I think this is a slippery slope, Earl.

It's alright to defend the man for believing in something, but I'm not sure that puts him in a place that we shouldn't dislike him for pursuing his goals. After all, if he's at all honest, then he is doing what he believes in, and that means his causes are a part of him. I'm sure I don't need to point out where it goes from there.
Another problem with what's happening. This isn't simply ceasing Sex Ed and putting it back in the hands of parents. It's continuing it (so parents might think it's being covered properly) but giving out incomplete (at best) information on the subject. A little information may well be more dangerous than none, since it means that those involved are less likely to do any research on their own (not that they would have anyways, but now there's no reason for them to do so... they've already been taught all that, right?)
Compare this tactic to "Intelligent Design," the Religious Right's assault on science. They're not doing away with evolutoin, they're just disguising their creationist message in a more easily swallowed form.
_"Men are never convinced of your reasons, of your sincerity, of the seriousness of your sufferings, except by your death. So long as you are alive, your case is doubtful; you have a right only to your skepticism. "<br>
-Albert Camus
User avatar
Gunny
SMITE!™ Grand Master
Posts: 8804
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2002 1:25 pm
Location: Chi-town

Post by Gunny »

I have no problem with schools teaching sex Ed so long as the person teaching it is qualified to do so. letting a teacher do 'stand in' classes just to fill in a time gap in his/her schedule to be paid for a full day is bullshit. schools need to have dedicated and qualified sex Ed teachers. no more coaches fumbling through reproductive organs or settling on videos do all the teaching. have schools organize after-school sessions for teacher/parent/student(s) so everyone can be involved. encourage pregnant mommies to share their experiences with students and allow them to see progress updates as well as ultrasounds. shit like that.
<center><b><font size=1><font color="#FF9900">"Invaders blood marches through my veins, like giant radioactive rubber pants! The pants command me! Do not ignore my veins!" -Zim</font></font></b></center>
User avatar
Cain
Knight of the Imperium
Posts: 3233
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 2:35 am

Post by Cain »

By which you mean you have to wonder if he doesn't think he's correct? I mean, what, exactly, do you have against someone who tries very hard to get done what they believe in?
By which, I mean he seems to have the attitude: "I'm the President of the USA, what I say goes." Not unlike the arguments of "divine right of kings". Bush seems to have the attitude that since he's President, he therefore knows best, and will shepherd everyone in the directions he knows are best, no matter what the little ones might think. "Little ones", in this case, being just about everyone who disagrees with him-- and includes a good portion of the scientific community. But that's another topic.
Let's be honest; parents don't take the time to do the job properly.
Er, no, don't have the time.

Look, it's well-known that a good chunk of a child's views on sex don't come from lectures, they come from watching his/her parents' attitudes towards affection, openness on sexual topics, and so on. Back when we could afford to have full-time, stay-at-home parents, kids had almost every waking hour to watch and learn from their parents.

Nowadays, kids spend more time at school and doing homework than with their parents. They get more influences from TV, school, and peers-- because they spend more time interacting with those, than interacting with their parents. However, said parents must spend 40 hours a week working, plus an average of 4-8 hours commuting, and who-knows-how-much time spent doing chores, or other adult activites?

But back to the topic. We all know that youth sexuality is a big problem, one that needs to be adressed. It can be demonstrated via hard statistics that solo abstinence-only programs are ineffective in preventing teen sexuality, teen pregnancy, and STD's. With that in mind, it seems pretty clear that Bush is following ideology instead of logic, and using rhetoric instead of rigourous logic. That alone should be scary-- but what's worse, is the fact that many teenagers will have to pay for his mistakes.
User avatar
Anguirel
Freeman of the Crimson Assfro
Posts: 2278
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 12:04 pm
Location: City of Angels

Post by Anguirel »

Cain wrote:Let's be fair. Parents don't have the time to do the job properly.
Both of my parents worked, but they took the time to talk to me about it. It was supplemented with more hard data in school, but they made that effort. My parents took me camping and to museums rather than Disney World every year. Granted, I think the cost had something to do with it, but they took the time to make sure I learned some things rather than hoping the school would do it.
3278 wrote:I mean, what, exactly, do you have against someone who tries very hard to get done what they believe in? If you agreed with him, you'd call him a hero, for finally getting your agenda heard, just as the far right is. Blame away, but only where it's due; don't fault him for having strong convictions.
Hitler had strong convictions. Torquemada had strong convictions. Einstein had misgivings. Copernicus had doubts. See my sig. Yes, I will fault him for having strong convictions.
3278 wrote:
Cain wrote:...fret over rather or not...
Whether or not.
That bothered me when I first saw it too, but I went and checked before I commented on it... "Rather or not" seems to be a common usage and evidently some even use it interchangably. This isn't, of course, proof of correct usage, but I found it interesting and held off on mentioning it until I could verify whether it was simply a dialect or alternate grammar, such as, perhaps, a British form. Side note: The correct idiom is (or was originally) "whether or no" rather than "whether or not."
complete. dirty. whore.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
User avatar
Salvation122
Grand Marshall of the Imperium
Posts: 3776
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Memphis, TN

Post by Salvation122 »

3278 wrote:Like everyone else here, I think Sal's a little crazy in this case, but I always think that when science is on the line.
The government is not responsible for a child's sex ed, nor should they be. I have trouble getting upset over statements like this -
Now, according to the once nonpartisan CDC, abstinence is the "surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases."
- which is unarguably accurate; I find it od that scientific fact is partisan - and laws like this -
In middle and high schools across the country, teachers are being directed to adhere to the Federal Definition of Abstinence-Only Education, which requires that a program teach, among other things, that "a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity" and that any other sexual activity "is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects." By law, teachers cannot "promote or endorse" condoms or show adolescents how to use them, nor can they recognize any relationship outside of heterosexual marriage.
- which will never ever not once in a thousand years be enforced.

Republicans have also been making noises about the evolution thing since Clinton was in office, and it's not going to happen because of the first ammendment /anyway./
Image
User avatar
Anguirel
Freeman of the Crimson Assfro
Posts: 2278
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 12:04 pm
Location: City of Angels

Post by Anguirel »

Salvation122 wrote:
In middle and high schools across the country, teachers are being directed to adhere to the Federal Definition of Abstinence-Only Education, which requires that a program teach, among other things, that "a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity" and that any other sexual activity "is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects." By law, teachers cannot "promote or endorse" condoms or show adolescents how to use them, nor can they recognize any relationship outside of heterosexual marriage.
- which will never ever not once in a thousand years be enforced.

Republicans have also been making noises about the evolution thing since Clinton was in office, and it's not going to happen because of the first ammendment /anyway./
It is being enforced. The wording says, "If you mention anything outside of these guidelines then your school gets no funding." So, technically, you aren't barred from saying it (thus avoiding the First Amendment) but in a practical sense most teachers will not go against the school board, and therefore will comply in order to get the funding. The idea behind it? "You want to teach something else? Great, more money for the schools that teach my way." Welcome to politics.
complete. dirty. whore.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
User avatar
Salvation122
Grand Marshall of the Imperium
Posts: 3776
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Memphis, TN

Post by Salvation122 »

Anguirel wrote:It is being enforced. The wording says, "If you mention anything outside of these guidelines then your school gets no funding."
I see. Have any schools actually lost funding for this? I'm thinking it would be all over the news if they did, so my guess is no - but if you prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to reverse that part of my opinion.
Image
User avatar
Patience
Bulldrek Pusher
Posts: 692
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Post by Patience »

ThatWendigo wrote: Am I the only one who feels that the American educational system has completely changed focus from being in the business of education to being in the business of churning out minimally capable workers?
Well said, sir.
ThatWendigo wrote:It just seems that we're so much more intent on test scores, standardization, and regurgitation, rather than any real education. People may be able to do basic math, but can they explain how it works? They might be able to tell you how rain forms, but do they know how that's linked to more fundamental principles of science? Can they read a passage and tell you about metaphor in words that aren't taken from Cliff notes?

My experience with many of my contemporaries, even in college, is a sad, pathetic "no."

I agree entirely. My parents made the decision that the public school system in our (relatively affluent) city neighborhood would not give me the sort of education they wanted me to have, and so as a purely practical consideration, they converted to Catholicism when I was two, and sent me to 12 years of no doubt expensive Catholic school, simply because they figured the Jesuits would nurture rather than stifle an inquisitive spirit (I know, bad pun, sorry).
That gave me my own neuroses, no doubt, but it also gave me a better and broader education than I would have received in the public school system.
Point? Catholic schools aren't really great in many respects; but I can point to them for my knowledge of human anatomy (I was impressed that the priest teaching the course was so matter of fact to high school freshmen; he came in with Grey's Anatomy and we had a totally frank discussion), and my knowledge of proper condom use.
_
<b>Thorn said:</b> Patience really does rock!!
<b>CykoSpin said:</b> Every time I see Patience (that is, a post by Patience), I think of the Iron Maiden song "Can I Play With Madness". I don't really know why, though; for whatever reason, I just do.
User avatar
Salvation122
Grand Marshall of the Imperium
Posts: 3776
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Memphis, TN

Post by Salvation122 »

ThatWendigo wrote:It just seems that we're so much more intent on test scores, standardization, and regurgitation, rather than any real education. People may be able to do basic math, but can they explain how it works? They might be able to tell you how rain forms, but do they know how that's linked to more fundamental principles of science? Can they read a passage and tell you about metaphor in words that aren't taken from Cliff notes?

My experience with many of my contemporaries, even in college, is a sad, pathetic "no."
While I agree, I'd point out that this has been the case for the last fifteen years, at the very least.

Edit: I would conjecture that this was brought about by the modern view that everyone needs to go to college, instead of the trade school option that was far more prevalent in the previous generation.
Image
User avatar
Patience
Bulldrek Pusher
Posts: 692
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Post by Patience »

Salvation122 wrote: Edit: I would conjecture that this was brought about by the modern view that everyone needs to go to college, instead of the trade school option that was far more prevalent in the previous generation.
Yes. And in the great American tradition we've devalued college so much that it's starting to be necessary to have a Master's Degree in your chosen profession to be taken seriously. For example, I want to be a high school English teacher in a private high school (the pay's better, frankly) and according to the administrative people in charge of hiring, they'll take you if you've got a Masters' in the subject(s) you'd like to teach, or in the late stages of acquiring one.

Great. More damn school just to prove I can make literature interesting for 16 year olds.
_
<b>Thorn said:</b> Patience really does rock!!
<b>CykoSpin said:</b> Every time I see Patience (that is, a post by Patience), I think of the Iron Maiden song "Can I Play With Madness". I don't really know why, though; for whatever reason, I just do.
ratlaw
Tasty Human
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2002 8:23 pm

Post by ratlaw »

Salvation122 wrote:
Anguirel wrote: It is being enforced. The wording says, "If you mention anything outside of these guidelines then your school gets no funding."
I see. Have any schools actually lost funding for this? I'm thinking it would be all over the news if they did, so my guess is no - but if you prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to reverse that part of my opinion.
You're asking completely the wrong question. We're not trying to determine if school funding has been cut, but if the /threat/ of cutting school funding has resulted in a change in how Sex-Ed is handeled in schools that receive federal money. So the question you should be asking is, "Have schools changed their Sex-Ed curriculums in response to this new law." I think the answer the article in question presents is a definite "yes." Perhaps a trip to google can answer the right question...
Salvation122 wrote:
Now, according to the once nonpartisan CDC, abstinence is the "surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases."
- which is unarguably accurate; I find it od that scientific fact is partisan
However, if your agency is the Center for Disease Control and your only suggestion for how to avoid STDs is abstinence until marriage, then you're ignoring every other method for not spreading or catching STDs. Not exactly a good way to control disease. That would be like saying, "The surest way to avoid transmission of airborne transmitted diseases is to only breathe air that has not been in contact with anyone else." Yes, it's accurate, but it's hardly usefull.

Another point. Anguirel mentioned that this changed his view of the purpose of taxation. I don't see why, this is a question of spending not of taxation. Seems to me this is a different subject entirely.
--
Ratlaw

By request all posts end in "Bla-DAMN!"
User avatar
Anguirel
Freeman of the Crimson Assfro
Posts: 2278
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 12:04 pm
Location: City of Angels

Post by Anguirel »

ratlaw wrote:Another point. Anguirel mentioned that this changed his view of the purpose of taxation. I don't see why, this is a question of spending not of taxation. Seems to me this is a different subject entirely.
The method differs, but the purpose and effect is the same. Example: Let's say you work in a Family Planning / Sex Ed. community center. Further, let's assume that you pay taxes on at least some portion of your income. Now, one final assumption - place the taxes at $5,000 yearly. As a government agency, I can now choose to either give you a tax break if you follow the Absitinence Only plan (worth $5,000) or I can hand you a federal aid package worth $5,000 if you follow my plan.

My old opinion was that the taxation form of this was acceptable. Because I saw the above connection, I'm more open to the idea that it shouldn't be, or should have considerable restrictions applied to help prevent abuse.
complete. dirty. whore.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
User avatar
Spiral
Wuffle Trainer
Posts: 1487
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 9:21 pm
Location: qc.sk.ca

Re: Bush Ideology is a Health Hazard

Post by Spiral »

Anguirel wrote:Further, they're removing anyone who speaks against it and replacing them with yes men. Hell with a potential Theocracy in Iraq, we may be faced with one in the U.S. shortly, if not already here.
This is one thing I'm not sure Americans are entirely aware of--Bush invokes god so much that it sounds like you have a theocracy, even if you don't.
User avatar
Cain
Knight of the Imperium
Posts: 3233
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 2:35 am

Post by Cain »

Salv: I posted this link before, but this article details some of the shortfalls in abstinence-only education. Basically, many abstinence-only programs focus on penile-vaginal penetration, and are deliberately vauge on other forms of sex (after all, "if kids know about it, they'll run off and try it!" is part of the logic behind said programs). They ignore, or do not adequately cover, the risks associated with oral sex, for starters.

By the strict interpretation of abstinence being taught (avoiding penile-vaginal penetration) it is clearly not the surest way of avoiding STDs.
Both of my parents worked, but they took the time to talk to me about it. It was supplemented with more hard data in school, but they made that effort. My parents took me camping and to museums rather than Disney World every year. Granted, I think the cost had something to do with it, but they took the time to make sure I learned some things rather than hoping the school would do it.
I envy you. I'm a new parent, struggling to maintain a home for myself and my partner, as well as our newborn baby. I work 40 hours a week, and when I get home, I'm usually too exhausted to spend much time with my baby. And even so, I'm not able to make ends meet, I'm only able to keep us from sliding downward too fast. If both my SO and I were working full-time, we could do much better-- but the cost of childcare would set us back almost as badly; however, the point is moot as no childcare agency out there will take a baby under 3 months.

As time goes on, and expenses mount, I'll have to go back to college to get the education for a better job. (I'm contemplating nursing.) Thus, I'll need to balance part-time schoolwork with a full-time job, and Andrea will need to work at least part-time as well for us to keep up. And both of us need and want to be full-time parents as well.

There's a lot I want to teach my daughter, as she grows up, but unfortunately I'll never be able to teach her by example as well as I would like. I can try and reach her with lectures, but those aren't as sucessful. Ultimately, she will learn from what she's seen people do-- not from what she's been told. I dearly wish I could be here for her, be an example-- but life today means it is not possible.

And I know I'm not alone. There are many parents, particularily low-income parents, who are forced to turn more and more of the raising of their children over to TV and public schools, simply because they do not have the time to do any differently.
User avatar
Anguirel
Freeman of the Crimson Assfro
Posts: 2278
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 12:04 pm
Location: City of Angels

Post by Anguirel »

Confirmation in the form of a 30 page report (plus some summary and cover pages) prepared for Rep. Waxman of California. Lots of other stuff in there as well with regards to Bush's politics invading science. I've only finihsed the Executive Summary, but people here might want to read it.

P.S. I like dredging up old threads.
complete. dirty. whore.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
User avatar
Serious Paul
Devil
Posts: 6644
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm

Post by Serious Paul »

So we've noticed, but at least you're better than me, at least you provide updated links. :lol
User avatar
Buzzed
Bulldrek Junkie
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 4:58 am

Post by Buzzed »

So you want schools to teach safe-sex, but you don't want them to teach kids about various forms of religion.

WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?

Remove the right to teach one thing, and it is a legal platform to allow the right to teach another thing, and another, and another, and another.

State and federal government controlled sex-ed = bad

seperation of church and state = bad

allowing local communities to decide what is best to teach their kids = good

Any form of censorship is BAD BAD BAD
User avatar
Adam
Freeman of the Crimson Assfro
Posts: 2393
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 4:27 am
Location: on.ca
Contact:

Post by Adam »

Paragraphs are GOOD GOOD GOOD.
User avatar
MissTeja
Wuffle Grand Master
Posts: 1959
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 3:25 am
Location: Grand Rapids
Contact:

Post by MissTeja »

Buzzed wrote:So you want schools to teach safe-sex, but you don't want them to teach kids about various forms of religion.
WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?
Remove the right to teach one thing, and it is a legal platform to allow the right to teach another thing, and another, and another, and another.
Okay - Not being properly educated on the vast array of religions available to be believed in and practiced by age 18 may suck in some people's opinons, but it is not an immediate risk to one's livelihood - or others.

Sex, on the otherhand, affects everyone. Even if you're 72 and have been abstinent all of your life - you were born from your mother's womb and I'm pretty sure sex had something to do with how you got there in the first place. As well, every day - women are being raped, boys are being sexually molested, and sex crimes are becoming more and more serious. The majority of these victims do not have a /choice/ in it. Proper education about sex is extremely important in human welfare.

So, where do /you/ draw the line then? I reside in Michigan, a state where the opening day of deer hunting season is considered a holiday in many school districts (thus, school is cancelled on that day.) If there are that many hunters, should we provide the students with education about different guns, ammunition, and the procedures to use them? Because, no matter how much a school may profess that they're teaching the student the proper use of guns, respect for them, and the necessary safety precautions, you can bet there would most definately be an uproar from parents at schools that began letting guns back in their hallways.

I have to disagree about the fact that parents do not have time to explain such things as sex education to their children. To make such a generalized statement discredits the many parents who /do/ make such efforts, as well as strips the accountability from parents who do not do such. I am going to try not to get preachy at all here with my own beliefs, but when someone makes the decision to become a parent, they are taking on a responsibility for the child's livelihood during their youth. With the sexually transmitted diseases and the wave of unwated teenage prenancies that we have, at least in this nation, education about something as prevalent and inevitable as sex has to be made time for. It's the children's health and livelihood at risk, and I believe that any parent - even if they are "just too busy" are completely negligent for not making the time to properly educate their children on such extreme risks.

That said, however, while I don't see sex education as primarily the government or school's responsibility, I think it is only aiding in the education process. I think it's just fine where it's currently at and hope, if anything, is expanded in the future.
To the entire world, you may be one single person, but to one person, you may be the entire world.
User avatar
Cain
Knight of the Imperium
Posts: 3233
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 2:35 am

Post by Cain »

I have to disagree about the fact that parents do not have time to explain such things as sex education to their children. To make such a generalized statement discredits the many parents who /do/ make such efforts, as well as strips the accountability from parents who do not do such. I am going to try not to get preachy at all here with my own beliefs, but when someone makes the decision to become a parent, they are taking on a responsibility for the child's livelihood during their youth. With the sexually transmitted diseases and the wave of unwated teenage prenancies that we have, at least in this nation, education about something as prevalent and inevitable as sex has to be made time for. It's the children's health and livelihood at risk, and I believe that any parent - even if they are "just too busy" are completely negligent for not making the time to properly educate their children on such extreme risks.
It isn't nearly that easy.

Sure, you can make time for The Talk, and do your research then, but what bloody good does that do? Kids form their attitudes about sex and sexuality from a very early age, from watching their parents and other adults. To do the job properly, you've got to start teaching them the right lessons about sexuality from damn near day one-- because if you don't, you damn well better believe that they'll learn entirely the wrong ones.

I've got a 9-month old daughter. I know I have to teach her about sex sometime, and I have to start from the time she's old enough to ask questions. Hell, I probably should have started when she discovered she could play with her crotch, six months ago. And let me tell you, trying to figure out *how* to teach her stuff now is a tremendous challenge, let alone what I should be teaching her.

"Make the time" to properly educate my child? I could spend 28 hours a day for the rest of my life working on it, and it still wouldn't be enough. Was there anything your parents could have told you that would have prevented you from having sex if you wanted to? I really doubt it. There's so much information out there, so much she really should know, that i really have no idea how I'm going to tell her it all, let alone show her how serious this all is. I know I didn't really discover how important it all was until I'd been hammered on the anvil of life a few dozen times. No matter how much time I spend, there's no way I can fully convey the harsh lessons I had to learn.

Think about it. The strongest lessons were the ones we had to learn firsthand, the hard way. You can't teach that kind of stuff. You just have to learn it.

I don't think you'll find that even the good parents, who make an effort, feel that they've done nearly as much as they should have. Parents still have to try-- and try harder than just giving them The Talk and a book on hamsters-- but don't blame the parents who didn't have enough time. Even if they had all the time in the world, it may not have been enough.
WillyGilligan
Wuffle Trainer
Posts: 1537
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 5:33 pm
Location: Hawai'i
Contact:

Post by WillyGilligan »

So you want schools to teach safe-sex, but you don't want them to teach kids about various forms of religion.
Sunday, it's not just for drinking anymore.

More seriously, I learned quite a bit in school about various forms of religion. That's part of the multiculturalism that is being adopted by a lot of schools. However, I got no moral education, which is what you're talking about. Safe-sex is about 2/3 technical information with one big caveat: You can't catch an STD if you don't have sex. Taking God out of the classroom didn't degrade our morality, our society degraded our morality by choosing the immoral lifestyle and patronizing media that caters to those choices. This is a product of "the will of the people" in it's most pure and direct form.

Frankly, people like to do it.
State and federal government controlled sex-ed = bad

seperation of church and state = bad
State controlled education is bad, but State controlled morality is good? Roger-dodger.
allowing local communities to decide what is best to teach their kids = good
This I can see. Although, what would be the ramifications of increasing our national diversity? On the one hand, driving cross-country in the states can be a little vanilla, but what would it be like without that? Hmmm...

Cain, it's like teaching your kids anything. It happens in small chunks over time. Make your kids a priority in your life and talk to them like human beings. They'll get most of what you can teach them just through that. Take any opportunity to illustrate your beliefs, without so much lecturing, and you should get most of what you want done. They'll make mistakes, and you can't prepare them for every eventuality, but it's not that bad.

It is hard to come home from working a 40+ hour week and play with children, but it's important to be available when you're home. That's what making time is all about.
Was there anything your parents could have told you that would have prevented you from having sex if you wanted to?
I don't know. I wanted to, and I didn't till I was 20. Whether it was specifically a parent thing, a school thing, or a friends thing, I can't say definitively.
Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, become critics. They also misapply overly niggling inerpretations of Logical Fallacies in place of arguing anything at all.
User avatar
MissTeja
Wuffle Grand Master
Posts: 1959
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 3:25 am
Location: Grand Rapids
Contact:

Post by MissTeja »

Cain wrote:Think about it. The strongest lessons were the ones we had to learn firsthand, the hard way. You can't teach that kind of stuff. You just have to learn it.
Maybe on a personal level, for you, they were. Granted, many of the strongest lessons were by firsthand experience, but not all of them. When parents talk, kids listen. They may not always like what they hear, but they will hear it none the less.
Cain wrote:I don't think you'll find that even the good parents, who make an effort, feel that they've done nearly as much as they should have. Parents still have to try-- and try harder than just giving them The Talk and a book on hamsters-- but don't blame the parents who didn't have enough time. Even if they had all the time in the world, it may not have been enough.
Yes, and I was not arguing this point.
Parents who at least make the effort and make the time to talk with their children have done their part. No, it's not always enough, but at least they found the time to do what they could. No parent is perfect and very few of them are pros at the job. There is a point in which a parent can only teach their child so much - after that point, the child is going to make their own choices regardless. However, having that base knowledge can do wonders for the childs welfare. I do not blame parents who "just didn't get through to their kids well enough" if they've made an effort, but you're damn right that I will continue to look to the parents for the accountability if they say they simply just "didn't have time." If you don't have time for your child, you need to readdress your priorities.
To the entire world, you may be one single person, but to one person, you may be the entire world.
User avatar
Buzzed
Bulldrek Junkie
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 4:58 am

Post by Buzzed »

My point is, the abstinence-only education fails because the morality argument is a huge factor, practically the base of the design, but the foundation is legally not allowed in schools, so the rest of the program is doomed not to work.

I say allow all information about safe sex and abstinence. Share with our kids their options when making decisions. Basically, censorship is telling our kids what we want them to do, instead of letting them make educated decisions themselves. Information is afterall the tools for decision making.

It has been proven time and time again that when you don't give a child a choice, they will rebell.
WillyGilligan
Wuffle Trainer
Posts: 1537
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 5:33 pm
Location: Hawai'i
Contact:

Post by WillyGilligan »

My point is, the abstinence-only education fails because the morality argument is a huge factor
And kids like to do it.


I see where you're coming from. I thought your were drumming for school prayer, which I don't think would help any. The schoolhouse lacks the moral authority it maybe once did. Of course, they can't paddle you in most districts, which may be a factor. Moral education is going to come in large part from how they see other people living and how accepted those ways are. Step one: parents. Step two: adults the parents interact with. Step three: friends. If those aren't going in a good direction, then school-taught morality will be useless anyway.
I say allow all information about safe sex and abstinence.
Agreed.
Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, become critics. They also misapply overly niggling inerpretations of Logical Fallacies in place of arguing anything at all.
User avatar
Buzzed
Bulldrek Junkie
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 4:58 am

Post by Buzzed »

Yeah, forcing a child to prey in a public school is unconstitutional. We can all agree to that. I was simply stating that I don't like how we cannot teach our kids about various religions.
WillyGilligan wrote:Step one: parents.
I agree, parents are the most important sex educators around.
WillyGilligan
Wuffle Trainer
Posts: 1537
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 5:33 pm
Location: Hawai'i
Contact:

Post by WillyGilligan »

But you can teach about various religions. I graduated in '95, so I could be out of date, but I learned about the history of Buddhism, Hinduism, Greek mythology, and a few others. Christianity takes a backseat, because it's the assumed default. At least, that's how I remember it. They just never said that one religion or another was correct. Nor did they hold us to a particularly religious moral standard. Just the everyday judeo-christian morality as filtered through secular society.
Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, become critics. They also misapply overly niggling inerpretations of Logical Fallacies in place of arguing anything at all.
User avatar
Cain
Knight of the Imperium
Posts: 3233
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 2:35 am

Post by Cain »

Parents who at least make the effort and make the time to talk with their children have done their part. No, it's not always enough, but at least they found the time to do what they could. No parent is perfect and very few of them are pros at the job. There is a point in which a parent can only teach their child so much - after that point, the child is going to make their own choices regardless. However, having that base knowledge can do wonders for the childs welfare. I do not blame parents who "just didn't get through to their kids well enough" if they've made an effort, but you're damn right that I will continue to look to the parents for the accountability if they say they simply just "didn't have time." If you don't have time for your child, you need to readdress your priorities.
Oh,I agree; the problem is that there's plenty of good parents out there, ones who did make the effort, who still say they simply didn't have enough time. I know I'm going to try, and try hard; but I just don't know if I will have the time to do the job right. I can spend every waking moment of every day, modeling appropriate sexual behaviors and attiudes, spend the time researching and teaching her everything I can, and I still may not have enough time.

There's an awfully damn fine line between "didn't get through" and "didn't have enough time to get through". It's not that easy to separate the two.
User avatar
Anguirel
Freeman of the Crimson Assfro
Posts: 2278
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 12:04 pm
Location: City of Angels

Post by Anguirel »

WillyGilligan wrote:But you can teach about various religions. I graduated in '95, so I could be out of date, but I learned about the history of Buddhism, Hinduism, Greek mythology, and a few others. Christianity takes a backseat, because it's the assumed default. At least, that's how I remember it. They just never said that one religion or another was correct. Nor did they hold us to a particularly religious moral standard. Just the everyday judeo-christian morality as filtered through secular society.
I seem to recall a bunch of Christianity when we studied the Roman Empire, the Byzantines -- really, most of the history of Europe that we can study in detail. I know we hit on the Calvinists and the Hugenots and such -- I'm pretty sure those were Christian sects. And yeah -- we also went over Islam, Buddhism (we read Siddhartha, as I recall), touches of Hinduism, Shintoism, Confucianism and Taoism... Some Native American beliefs, Animism... Ok, my school covered a lot more than the average, I'd imagine, but I have to agree with Willy, here. Teaching religion (in a purely academic sense) certainly isn't forbidden from Public Schools in America as yet.
complete. dirty. whore.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
User avatar
3278
No-Life Loser
Posts: 10224
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 8:51 pm

Post by 3278 »

Cain wrote:It isn't nearly that easy.
Yeah, it is. Maybe people have to rethink the way they spend time, but there's plenty of hours in 18 years, starting right at the beginning.
Cain wrote:Sure, you can make time for The Talk, and do your research then, but what bloody good does that do?
If you have to "do research" to tell your kids about sex, maybe you shouldn't be having kids. You should be doing the research - if you don't already know enough about sex to do it responsibly - before you start having sex. Or after you start having sex, but before you start having children. Or, hey, when they're eight, if there's something horribly wrong with you; it'll do a lot of "bloody" good.
Cain wrote:Kids form their attitudes about sex and sexuality from a very early age, from watching their parents and other adults. To do the job properly, you've got to start teaching them the right lessons about sexuality from damn near day one-- because if you don't, you damn well better believe that they'll learn entirely the wrong ones.
Yes. It's that simple.
Cain wrote:"Make the time" to properly educate my child? I could spend 28 hours a day for the rest of my life working on it, and it still wouldn't be enough.
That's a common perception among parents about all realms of education. We don't think there's enough time to teach all of /anything./ We're being overzealous in our parenting, and overly scared for our children, and underestimating their abilities. Hey, don't worry, our parents did it too, and look how we turned out. Every parent from the dawn of time would say that there's never enough time to teach everything, but Alexander ended up alright, and his father was busy taking over the world. [Talk about growing up with violence in the schools.]
Cain wrote:Was there anything your parents could have told you that would have prevented you from having sex if you wanted to? I really doubt it.
Yes. "Don't have sex until you get married." I listened, and it kept me from having sex even when I wanted to.
Cain wrote:The strongest lessons were the ones we had to learn firsthand, the hard way.
Ironically, the strongest lesson I learned firsthand, the hard way, was that my parents were nitwits, and that premarital sex was totally sweet, so long as I wasn't irresponsible about it. But their lesson kept me from doing it until I was responsible enough to make the decision on my own, and damn am I glad it did. I waited until the right time and the right person, and while I'm glad I didn't wait until marriage, I'm also glad I didn't start at 14.
Cain wrote:You can't teach that kind of stuff. You just have to learn it.
Yeah, you can. All day, every day. The /strongest/ lessons we learn from watching our parents. These lessons are so strong, we don't even realize they're lessons. Because the foundation of all people is their childhood, and because all children are the result of what they have learned and experienced, teaching by example while your children are young is the single most important thing you can do. And the best part is, you don't have to "make time" for it; all you have to do is do the right thing, all the time. And when you do that, there's plenty of time left over to have the hard talks.
User avatar
MooCow
Orbital Cow Gunner
Posts: 4339
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 11:51 am
Location: Chicago

Post by MooCow »

Hey, don't worry, our parents did it too, and look how we turned out.
Right..... How exactly is that supposed to make us feel any better?
User avatar
Cain
Knight of the Imperium
Posts: 3233
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 2:35 am

Post by Cain »

If you have to "do research" to tell your kids about sex, maybe you shouldn't be having kids.
Oh, /please/. The world has changed a great deal since I was a kid. The whole AIDS scare was news to my generation, for one. If you're going to be able to give your kids accurate information on STD's, you've got to stay abreast of the current research. And don't forget the internet-- that's a whole new set of dangers in and of itself. You may be naturally internet-savvy, but a lot of people out there aren't-- they may be great parents, but they *still* need to do a ton of research on the dangers of the net; and the fact that they're *doing* the research is part of what makes them great parents! If you're not teaching your kids about the new dangers-- STD's, the internet, and so on-- then you're not doing your kids much good.
Hey, don't worry, our parents did it too, and look how we turned out.
That's not exactly the most inspiring comment. (Actually, my first reaction was: "Great, we're *really* fucked now.")
And the best part is, you don't have to "make time" for it; all you have to do is do the right thing, all the time. And when you do that, there's plenty of time left over to have the hard talks.
What human being can possibly "do the right thing" every waking moment of every day? If humans were perfect machines, what you decribe may just be possible-- but until that day rolls around, none of us are going to be able to set a perfect example 100% of the time.

So, it's as easy as that-- all you've gotta do is be absolutely perfect every moment of every day, and never screw up. Which means it's one of the most bloody difficult things imaginable.
User avatar
3278
No-Life Loser
Posts: 10224
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 8:51 pm

Post by 3278 »

Cain wrote:
3278 wrote:If you have to "do research" to tell your kids about sex, maybe you shouldn't be having kids.
Oh, /please/. The world has changed a great deal since I was a kid. The whole AIDS scare was news to my generation, for one. If you're going to be able to give your kids accurate information on STD's, you've got to stay abreast of the current research.
Yep. Sure thing. And if you can't do that, maybe you shouldn't be having kids. Look at what you're saying: "I don't know everything about sex today! So when I have kids, I don't know everything about the sex that I'm having to make them!" Yuh.
Cain wrote:If you're not teaching your kids about the new dangers-- STD's, the internet, and so on-- then you're not doing your kids much good.
AIDS is 20, the internet is 10. Syphilis is as old as time itself. Let's stop calling them "new dangers," yeah?
Cain wrote:
3278 wrote:And the best part is, you don't have to "make time" for it; all you have to do is do the right thing, all the time. And when you do that, there's plenty of time left over to have the hard talks.
What human being can possibly "do the right thing" every waking moment of every day? If humans were perfect machines, what you decribe may just be possible-- but until that day rolls around, none of us are going to be able to set a perfect example 100% of the time.
Nope. And your kids will suffer for it. But it beats your option, which is, "Don't have enough time to teach your kids about sex."
User avatar
Cain
Knight of the Imperium
Posts: 3233
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 2:35 am

Post by Cain »

AIDS is 20, the internet is 10. Syphilis is as old as time itself. Let's stop calling them "new dangers," yeah?
They're bloody new to my generation, and still a shock to those younger. Nowadays, it's not uncommon for 40+ year old women to be having babies, and not unheard-of for 50+ year old women. We didn't know anything about AIDS back then, the internet wasn't even imagined by most of us, and no one really talked about syphillis or other STD's except as things bad people got.

We've manged to get this far without AIDS, and there's millions of people out there who have no need to learn about the internet for their daily lives. But once kids enter the picture, what was good enough for us back then isn't good enough now. If it were still the 50's and 60's, a lot of us would know how to handle things. But the world has changed, and not all of us have changed alongside it.
Nope. And your kids will suffer for it. But it beats your option, which is, "Don't have enough time to teach your kids about sex."
Actually, my option was: "Try as best you can, but don't blame the parents or demand accountability because they didn't succeed." And, my option is also: "It takes an entire village to raise one child." Everyone, at every level of society, needs to be involved in raising our children in some fashion. This includes our public schools and governments.

Yah, I know, you're going to go off on your "personal reponsibility rant" again. Look, just a hundred years ago, a couple raising a child by themselves was absolutely unthinkable. The local government and churches would get together and support every family; they would make sure the children were doing ok, had enough food and clothes, and decent shelter. Nowadays? If a single mom can't hack it, people say she's "Not trying hard enough" and walk away. And since then, the amount one has to learn to function in society has increased exponentially-- a hundred years ago, you could get by with just basic reading and writing and addition/subtraction; nowadays, you need algebra and calculus just to do many daily tasks.

If doing it alone was unthinkable a century ago, when the demands were simpler; why should it be a sign of laziness today?

Parents need the help that public education provides. Esepcially in complex areas, such as sex education. No, it shouldn't be solely up to the schools. Yes, parents need to make a good strong effort in this area. No, it should not be, nor has it ever been at any point in time, the sole responsibility of a parent to raise a child and convey sexual attitudes and morals.

At the very least, we can make sure that the public schools are armed with objective science and unpoliticized facts, yes?
User avatar
Cain
Knight of the Imperium
Posts: 3233
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 2:35 am

Post by Cain »

Hey, 32, here's a question for you as a parent.

Like I said, I have a 9-month old daughter. And I happen to agree with you that parents need to make an effort to teach their kids about sex and sexual attitudes from the moment they start making inquiries in that area.

So, here's the thing. She's learned she can play with her crotch. I know it's not harmful, and probably a natural healthy thing for a 9-month old (she actually discovered she could do this 6 months ago, but she's been picking it up more recently, whenever we change her diaper). The question I have for you is this-- what lessons should I be trying to teach her, and how the hell do I go about it? (Bear in mind, she hasn't managed to fully associate a single word yet.)
crone
Bulldrek Junkie
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 9:48 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by crone »

Cain, it sounds like she is learning just fine on her own.
Post Reply