quote: On Friday, two messages came through loud and clear as the State Board of Education voted on a new list of approved health books: That abstinence should be taught without any textbook discussion of contraception. And that the books should be explicit about marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
In case anyone is wondering, I am pioneering a new, groundbreaking thread where fluff and serious topics are combined.
They laughed at me at the Sorbonne and threw me out of JPL for this audacious idea, but who'll have the last laugh now, huh? HUH?!?
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
*listens for laughing, hears none*
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Let me just state, for the record, that as a very religious person with strong moral values and powerful taboos against premarital sex, I think that limiting education about sex is retarded. Ignorance is not the solution to immorality. If anything, it's a contributor.
No amount of sheltering can fix a society that fails to rein in youthful behavior through social means. I am not one of those idiots that says "Kids will have sex anyway, so just live with it," but I DO say, "Kids will FIND OUT ABOUT sex anyway, so when they do, they will need to be given powerful reasons to act responsibly — otherwise, they will discover those reasons themselves by making mistakes that we'll all have to live with."
Basically, this program is barking up the wrong tree. Good intentions there, but really bad strategy for meeting those intentions.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
ARND I agree wholeheartedly with his sentiment, though I'm not particlularly religious at the moment.
AJ
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Time to invest in children's clothing stores in Texas.
[ November 10, 2004, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I think kids should get information about how their bodies work, and how the bodies of the opposite sex work. I think they should know what causes pregnancy and what can prevent it from happening. And, I think parents that don't want their children taught about birth control should have the opportunity to opt out and keep their kids out of the class that day.
I think abstinence should be stressed and I don't think the school should encourage any type of sexual activity, but I don't have a problem with kids knowing about birth control.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Before anyone decides to post anti-religious rants -- something Geoff's and Belle's excellent posts should head off -- let me point out that this was a nicely balanced article from the Christian Science Monitor.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:And, I think parents that don't want their children taught about birth control should have the opportunity to opt out and keep their kids out of the class that day.
Should parents have ultimate control in what their children learn though?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, they should.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Should parents have ultimate control in what their children learn though?
I don't think they possibly can, although they can exert a good amount of influence.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
What are teachers for?
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
Teaching. Parents are for limiting what they teach.
Anyway, this reminds me of that one scene in "Mean Girls".
"If you have sex, you are going to die! Now here's some rubbers."
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: and how the bodies of the opposite sex work.
I learned that all by myself back when I was a teen -- in the years before sex ed!
FG
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
quote: And that the books should be explicit about marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Now this I could het ticked off at. Let's raise us a generation of homophobes, eh?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Storm, the Dolphin is hilarious, and the holiday sodas look absolutely, hideously repulsive.
Nasty. Truly, truly nasty.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Pepsi has also come out with Pepsi Spice, which is holiday flavored Pepsi.
Pepsi's new slogan? Pepsi, now with more Christmas!
-Bok
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
I think the Cranberry soda sounds good, and the fruitcake could be good if they concentrated more on the fruit than the cake.
The others, though, sound really gross.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Are you serious?
*goes off to google*
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:No amount of sheltering can fix a society that fails to rein in youthful behavior through social means. I am not one of those idiots that says "Kids will have sex anyway, so just live with it," but I DO say, "Kids will FIND OUT ABOUT sex anyway, so when they do, they will need to be given powerful reasons to act responsibly — otherwise, they will discover those reasons themselves by making mistakes that we'll all have to live with."
Yep. Speak the truth.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Do you want kids to abstain because they don't know any better, or do you want them to abstain because of a deep, conscious choice.
The first group make terribly popular college freshmen.
[ November 10, 2004, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Does the dolphin go under water too? It wasn't clear from the article. Is it also a submarine as well as a surface PWC? If so I really really want one! If it's just a standard PWC that is shaped like a dolphin then it's only cute.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Before anyone decides to post anti-religious rants -- something Geoff's and Belle's excellent posts should head off -- let me point out that this was a nicely balanced article from the Christian Science Monitor.
I'm sorry, what? Does anyone here doubt that one of the prime influences in this decision was the people's religions? How does other religious people saying that they don't support this decision somehow make this not a religiously influenced issue? As such, if someone thinks that this is a poor decision, how is it that they can't talk about the weaknesses that these religious people are exhibiting in the name of their religion?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It's justified by religion, but it's based on ignorance, fear, and short-sightedness. By pointing this out I was hoping to avoid "those whacky Christians are at it again" posts.
I was also impressed that the Christian Science Monitor wrote about it in a way that could have been printed by any other newspaper, without giving any sign of how the writer personally felt about it. After months of election coverage, that's refreshing to see.
[ November 11, 2004, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
My eight year-old son asked how a baby was made, after a discussion of mammals and amphibians. My daughter(10) told him he was not ready for the answer and should wait until he, too, was ten. He pushed for more information. I did what i thought was an excellent third grade level sex ed talk. He then said, "You mean I have to take off my penis and put it in a girl??" No, no(further explanation) "You mean a baby grows from the end of my penis??" No, no. Then he says, "Alyssa was right. I'll just wait til I'm ten." I almost drove off the road. What a good job I did, eh?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:"You mean I have to take off my penis and put it in a girl??"
Why do you think it's always men leading the charge for abstinence?
Hobbes
[ November 11, 2004, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Ha ha!
Posted by Intelligence3 (Member # 6944) on :
quote: I almost drove off the road. What a good job I did, eh?
That's pretty funny.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Um, I'd just like to jump in and say that the Christian Science Monitor is about as far from Bible-thumping as the religion itself is. I can't even imagine a Christian Science church advocating for abstinence-only education, anti-homosexual legislation, or eroding separation of church and state.
Just sayin'.
[ November 11, 2004, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Zeugma ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, quite.
The Christian Science Monitor is one of the most respected institutions in journalism, and is known for its well-balanced approach to issues without trying to make things which aren't balanced appear balanced.
Posted by Intelligence3 (Member # 6944) on :
quote: The Christian Science Monitor is one of the most respected institutions in journalism, and is known for its well-balanced approach to issues without trying to make things which aren't balanced appear balanced.
But I bet their health insurance sucks.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
Not to mention the serious repercussions of abstinence only education: 1. of students who take chastity vows, 88 percent of them break them 2. of the students who break them, 60 percent have unprotected sex, as opposed to only 40 percent of students having sex without having taken chastity vows 3. Although students on both sides have about the same percentage of people getting STDs, those who have had abstinance only education are less likely to know they have STDs and less likely to get them treated. 4. Many abstinence only programs give faulty information about contraceptives, even to the point of leading students to believe they're so faulty as to be useless. Although the programs that go that far tend to be more the religious initiatives, rather than the public school ones.
[ November 11, 2004, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: Toretha ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don’t understand advocating withholding knowledge. Sex is a part of life, and even if they won’t use it now, they will use it sometime. Isn’t the purpose of school to prepare people for life? At some point, they need to know about sex and how bodies work. That’s what school is for!
Sex education doesn’t mean tips on technique. At some point, they’ll probably use birth control. We learn things in school we won’t immediately use all the time. Why is this different?
I was at lunch the other day with a 45-year-old mother-of-two coworker who has started going through menopause and was surprised to learn that one of the benefits is that she will stop having her period. Good golly, give them knowledge.
[ November 11, 2004, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Chris, I see it as their decision being a product of their religion, which contains elements of ignorance, fear, and short-sightedness. These people self-identify as are identified by others as Christians. They will most likely say that their reasons for this come from their religion. Their preachers and religious leaders are telling them this is part of their religion. How do you determine that all this is incorrect?
What makes something that is doctrinally and/or structurally part of someone's religion actually not religious? Is it just that you disagree with it? I remember a discssion a little while back about hell where someone claimed, in response to statements that hell was considered a place of torture, "Actually, hell is separation from God." and left it at that. And I thought to myself, "What amazing arrogance."
Maybe these people are right and God doesn't want children to have sex education? Who are you to say that this isn't a valid thing? Maybe Hell is actually a firery pit of torture as many people sincerely believe their religion teaches them.
From a more practical standpoint, leaving issues of absolute truth out of it, these people are organized into a group that holds certain beliefs and these beliefs are what are coming into this decision. How is this not influenced by that group then? Are they not actually Christians because you don't believe in what they are saying? At what point can we make the determination that people's beliefs that we don't agree with make it so they aren't actually sincere beliefs?
The way I see it, this sort of repressive attitude towards sex is a widespread aspect of Christian culture (apparently, I missed being taught in Catholic school that masturbation would make me go blind by about 10 years or so). It's not shared by all Christians, but it is shared by many. Now, you may say hat it is due to ignorance, fear, and short-sightedness. I would agree, but that means to me that ignorance, fear, and short-sightedness are also widespread in Christian culture. I'm unsure as to what reasons you have for saying that they aren't, that real Christians don't believe things like this.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
So wait a second... All they do with abstinence only education is tell them not to have sex? Since when does telling someone NOT to do something work? Especially since you get whole heaps of half naked people running around on television and in billboards tempting everyone constantly.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
MrSquicky, I'm not sure where you're getting any of the conclusions I've apparently made.
I have not drawn distinctions between "real" Christians and other Christians. I was trying to head off claims along the lines of "Christians keep doing things like this" when that assigns specific beliefs that are not, in fact, shared by all Christians as evidenced by the other posts here.
The reason I don't want to see arguments like that isn't because I disagree that many of the anti-sex social beliefs are Christian in nature. I would rather avoid such arguments because condemning the religion to speak out against specific bits of it is ineffective and counterproductive since you lose the support of Christians who agree with you.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
But isn't the statement "Christians keep doing things like this." accurate? I mean, this is the entire state of Texas we're talking about, right? It's only saying "All Christians keep doing things like this." that would be inaccurate.
What I saw was you trying to say was that this wasn't a problem with a popular interpretation of Christianity, but rather due to something other than what these people consider their Christian beliefs. From my perspective, that's a common interpretation of the bad things that Christians keep doing and your response to my first post contained the hallmarks of it. Perhaps I was mistaken and your point was that not all Christians doing things like this, even though many do. If so, I appologize, but I've got to wonder, where were you trying to get that across that I missed?
edit: And if I lose the support of Christians who agree with me because I dare to say that it because these people are acting according to their beliefs of what Christianity is and their Christian group association, then the support of the Christians who agree with me really isn't worth much.
[ November 11, 2004, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
...the support of the Christians who agree with me really isn't worth much.
I'd say the last election proves that wrong.
I disagree with "Christians keep doing this" or even "some Christians keep doing this." I think "Narrow-minded, fearful people with Christian beliefs keep doing this," which I think is a more accurate representation of my opinion.
Christianity doesn't make you narrow-minded, but narrow-minded people can find plenty of justification there if they want it. It's an important distinction, I think.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
See, I would disagree. I think that certain versions of Christianity both appeal to narrow-minded people and encourage the growth and maintainence of narrow-mindedness. I believe in subjecting Christianity to the same sort of analysis that other belief systems are fair game for and from that perspective it seems suportable to me to say that Christianity in most of its forms carries potential problems in its history, structure, and dogma. I have in fact talked about this at length in many other threads.
And if people are more invested in their group loyalty than in their principles (as would be the case in the losing their support thing) than it's not that their support wouldn't be useful, but that I wouldn't be able to get it if I was in any way criticizing Christians.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Of course, by doing so you're relinquishing any chance of changing the minds of the Christians on these issues.
"Here's why you're narrowminded and ignorant..." is seldom the start to a profitable conversation.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And I would never start a persuasive pitch that way. Of course, it's unlikely that I would ever put much effort into trying to convince the Christians (which is not all of them by a long shot) who have made narrow-mindess a principle tenet of their religion through logical argument anyway, as if my argument was convincing they'd actually most likely become more narrow minded. I'm much more interested in getting Christians who are not so narrow-minded or driven by group loyalty to realize and admit that many Christians do have these problems and it is part of what they see as their religion.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Not to mention the serious repercussions of abstinence only education: 1. of students who take chastity vows, 88 percent of them break them 2. of the students who break them, 60 percent have unprotected sex, as opposed to only 40 percent of students having sex without having taken chastity vows
School-imposed "abstinence vows" are a stupid idea anyway, when enacted within a larger society that offers (1) no consequences for breaking them, and (2) no real consequences for breaking your word on ANY subject.
People scream "You can't judge me!" whenever there is a social consequence assigned to an immoral act, but in truth, this is the only effective way to encourage people to live responsibly. Now, I was a pretty good kid, and may have lived by the chastity standards of my community regardless of consequences. BUT, the fact that if I broke them, I ...
(1) couldn't go on a mission, which is THE critical rite of passage that every young Mormon man is expected to complete
(2) couldn't bless the sacrament on Sunday, a very public and noticeable responsibility
(3) could not have married in the temple, another critical rite of passage, without going through a long repentance process
(4) would have seriously shamed my parents
... made my decision MUCH, MUCH easier. I wasn't just taking some meaningless vow because I was asked to in a class. My expected fulfillment of my culture's expectations were a key element of my life from birth. They were a defining part of my identity, and giving them up would have meant giving up almost everything that I held dear.
As a result, while I had an active romantic life, I kept my sex life in check before I was married, I fathered no illegitimate children, I caught no STD's, and I suffered none of the emotional consequences of being "used". Plus, from my own moral standpoint, while I have many stupid and embarrassing romantic memories, I don't have to deal with any truly soul-wrenching regrets of having slept with the wrong person.
Offering true social consequences for self-destructive choices can feel like pouring salt in a wound when you DO violate a taboo and incur them, and because of that, many people see them for nothing but the guilt and pain they cause, and seek to strip them from society.
But look at the future we've created for ourselves by doing so. We have a massive problem with illegitimate and teenage births, single-parent homes, widespread abortion, and the potential to spread STDs like wildfire. And we have almost NO effective tools in our arsenal for reining in these problems, because the tools that actually WORK have been thrown away.
Education helps, to a degree, but expectations work far better. But these days, all we expect from kids is the worst. And wow, what a surprise, that's what we get.
[ November 11, 2004, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:People scream "You can't judge me!" whenever there is a social consequence assigned to an immoral act, but in truth, this is the only effective way to encourage people to live responsibly.
I have major problems with this statement. I think that this is a horrible, disrespectful view of human nature. Maybe you didn't cheat just because you might get caught, but while I'll admit that factored into my decision, I had plenty of other reasons not to do so and if I was in a situation where I could cheat without any social consequences, I still wouldn't do it.
Besides that, reward/punishment systems have a pretty poor record in terms of encouraging positive behavior.
[ November 11, 2004, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
quote:But I bet their health insurance sucks.
This almost got me in trouble here at work, I laughed so hard. Posted by Johnny Lee Wombat (Member # 7021) on :
Puppy, your post gives good evidence of why so many Mormons are the way they are. Thanks. I always knew there had to be methods of control built into the church, but no Mormons here would ever admit to it or talk about it. Again, thanks.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Squick, I think I stated pretty clearly that I was a good kid, and probably wouldn't have made those choices anyway, even without the societal consequences. My point was, though, that stripping society of artificial social consequences for immoral behavior leaves people to head merrily down destructive paths until they reap the real, unavoidable, physical consequences of their actions. I believe that one of the functions of society is to discourage self- and society-destructive behavior by creating early consequences that head off the most extreme results of such behavior. We put murderers in jail to stop them from becoming mass-murderers. We treat racists with the utmost contempt to prevent racism from returning to prominence as a feature of our culture. And in some shrinking segments of our society, we still view sexually-irresponsible behavior as a shameful wrong to prevent the destructive results of rampant promiscuity.
Society is not only made up of good and scrupulous people. It is a place where, like it or not, the scrupulous must live alongside the selfish. Which means that we must create ways to encourage ethical and responsible behavior even among people to whom ethics and responsibility do not come naturally. If you know another effective way to do so, I'm all ears, but so far, from what I've seen, simply telling an unethical person what the ethical choice in a situation might be (ie, "Use birth control because you shouldn't give your girlfriend an unwanted child") doesn't actually increase his chances of making that choice when the situation arises.
As far as "methods of control" go, Johnny, I think you're reading some nefarious motivations into my post that weren't there. The Mormon church isn't about controlling people, regardless of what our most paranoid detractors would have you believe. But it is unabashedly about creating a functional, moral society, where people can live together in harmony, without constant fear and distrust. That means more than just preaching pretty platitudes about being nice. In the real world, it means clearly defining and expecting honorable, ethical behavior from members, and mutually agreeing to live up to a very high standard. And it WORKS. I can't say the same for many of these school programs ...
[ November 11, 2004, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The Mormon church isn't about controlling people, regardless of what our most paranoid detractors would have you believe. But it is unabashedly about creating a functional, moral society...."
Although you just pointed out that society is all about controlling people, within the context of this conversation. Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Tom, I avoid the phrase "controlling people" because that brings with it a lot of connotations that do not apply. It makes you think of brainwashing, cult leaders, mind-control, tyranny, etc ... when in truth, the Church strives to strike a fair and comfortable balance between clear, high expectations on one hand, and self-determination on the other. It isn't motivated to control every aspect of a person's life, and there are clear lines set in place that church leaders cannot cross.
It is, however, motivated to enrich a person's life by heading them off from self-desctructive decisions, and by heading off other people from causing hurt. It's a fine line to walk, and it requires sacrifices sometimes on the part of the individual. I don't get to use alcohol, for instance, as a means of relaxing my mind at the end of a tough day of work. But as a result, I and many other people in the Church are headed off from the ravages of alcoholism.
So yes, I had a lot more to worry about as a kid than many of my non-Mormon peers. I had a standard to live up to, which was a weight on my shoulders that I might have been more comfortable without, regardless of whether or not I actually desired to break the rules. And some people do abandon that weight in favor of a "freer" lifestyle, unhindered by expectations.
But this little society of mine is a better place to live, specifically because of the social expectations. Don't get me wrong, I constantly fight against Pharisaic drift — the tendency of religious cultures to become more demanding and pointlessly stringent as time goes by. There are rules that the more structure-loving segment of Mormon society tries to impose, such as a taboo against beards, or against watching R-rated movies, that I disagree with and argue against. But that does not render the underlying principle false, that members of a healthy society should be held to a real standard of behavior towards other members.
[ November 11, 2004, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Oh, so anyway, my answer to you is, society isn't about "controlling people" in the most pejorative sense. But it should set a soft hedge around permissible ethical behavior.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Dag:
quote: Yes, they should.
Really? So is it wrong to force children to go to school and learn about maths and history if the parents don't want them to?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
For the record, a lot of Puppy's statements about worsening conditions concerning teen pregnancy and the like are not born out by the statistics; if anything, there has been a downtick (or flattening, depending on your time period).
I would give two rationales I'm in favor of to explain these stats. Despite increasing explicitness in TV and entertainment in general, the rates have fallen, a) partially due to the AIDS scare; and b) due to increasingly common "comprehensive" sex ed programs (either through school, or ad hoc through the media), that I think made the self-reporting more honest (I think earlier stats were over-inflated out of stigma that one OUGHT to have sex by some mythical age) as well as actually taught people stuff that let them make better decisions.
-Bok
EDIT: These are only teen sex stats. I don't know if the increased abortion/teen pregnancy statements of Puppy are true or not.
[ November 11, 2004, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Really? So is it wrong to force children to go to school and learn about maths and history if the parents don't want them to?
Yep.
Dagonee
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
So what if the only thing you want your children to learn is to go out and kill black people, is that okay too?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What do you mean by OK? Something I approve of? No. But I don't approve of parents not teaching their children about sex, either.
Dagonee
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I mean do you find it ok in the same way you seem to think it's ok for a parent to decide they don't want their child to learn maths.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You might have a few things mixed up here.
It is absolutely the parents' right to control what their child is taught.
It is the school's responsibility to teach the children what they need to know to meet state and federal-regulated standards.
These do not always match.
As to whether or not any particular subject is right or wrong, that's up to the parent, and you're welcome to try to persuade the parent to your views. Now if the parent teaches the child to do something illegal and the child acts on that, then we get into legal matters...
None of that touches on what Dagonee personally may or may not think of the subject.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't "think it's ok for a parent to decide they don't want their child to learn maths."
I don't think they should be forced to make their child learn math.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Chris, that's pretty much what I think.
Dagonee
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Whew. Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
You're dodging.
So you think it's right that a parent shouldn't have to have their child taught maths if they don't want to.
Do you think it is also right for a parent to teach their child that their sole goal in life is to kill black people?
Edit: Missed your post Chris. So which takes priority when the two clash?
[ November 11, 2004, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: jebus202 ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I don't think it's right.
I do think they have the right.
Edited to add: the parent gets priority. In your "killing all blacks" example, it might be illegal to promote a crime, have to defer to Dagonnee on that one. Otherwise I'd say the parent has that right and there it stops unless the kid is stupid enough to actually try it.
You can't legislate people to make them stop being idiots.
[ November 11, 2004, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You're dodging.
So you think it's right that a parent shouldn't have to have their child taught maths if they don't want to.
I'm not dodging. You're asking two different things and I'm answering two different ways. Read the sentence quoted above again.
I think it wrong that parents be forced to do X.
That does not mean I think it is right for parents to not do X.
quote:Do you think it is also right for a parent to teach their child that their sole goal in life is to kill black people?
The also is highly misplaced here. Again, I don't think it's right for parents not to make sure their children learn math. I don't think it's right for parents to teach their children to kill black people.
Dagonee
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
You're really being anal about that word "right".
I understand you don't agree with the morality of it.
But do you think it is their right to teach their child nothing but killing black people.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Dagonne is a lawyer (or lawyer in training, I've lost track). He's more or less expected to be anal about definitions like that.
I might suggest you look up the term "straw man", however.
[ November 11, 2004, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I am not being anal about the word right. You're using it in two different manners and expecting me not to notice.
It is not acceptable for the government to stop them from teaching their child nothing but killing black people.
It is not morally correct for them to teach their child nothing but killing black people.
Dagonee
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote: the parent gets priority. In your "killing all blacks" example, it might be illegal to promote a crime, have to defer to Dagonnee on that one. Otherwise I'd say the parent has that right and there it stops unless the kid is stupid enough to actually try it.
Stupid enough? Perhaps you don't understand what a child is. It can only know what it has been told. If a child is brought out in the middle of no-where with no idea of laws and it's whole understanding of life comes from an insane racist, how is the child stupid when it acts on how it has been taught?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote: I am not being anal about the word right. You're using it in two different manners and expecting me not to notice.
I'm not using it in two different manners, you haven't sussed me out, despite what you may think. I meant it in the same way both times, trying not to connect you with the idea of killing blacks being acceptable.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Now you've set up a situation involving an isolated commune filled with training camps that turn out fully armed, black-person-killing children. That, I admit, might be on the wrong side of the law.
I guess the real question is how far do you plan to push this example until you get the answer you're looking for?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In your "killing all blacks" example, it might be illegal to promote a crime, have to defer to Dagonnee on that one.
Very fuzzy. In general, speaking to the actual criminal actor can be a criminal act if it incites a specific crime (including a specific (alhtough possibly unidentified) victim), solicits someone to commit the crime, expresses agreement to commit the crime, helps someone figure out how to commit the crime, or somehow assists in the commission of the crime. I'm sure I've missed a few.
In this case, if the parents are saying in general, "You should kill black people," they might not have culpability. If they say, "go out and kill us a black person," they probably do. There's lots of room between the two for law professors to torture us with.
This ignores tort liability, which the parents might have for their general teaching.
Dagonee P.S., Of course, there are crimes that are committed by speaking - threats, coercion, extortion, etc.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
This is far enough. Why is that scenario different, Chris?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm not using it in two different manners, you haven't sussed me out, despite what you may think. I meant it in the same way both times, trying not to connect you with the idea of killing blacks being acceptable.
You've used it as an adjective meaning "conforming with or conformable to morality" and you've used it in the noun sense meaning "something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature."
I've fully answered your questions 3 times now.
Dagonee
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Thank you, you'll notice I'm no longer asking it.
And I meant the adjective as "something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature."
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
There are an awful lot of things taught children, by parents and by teachers, that I disagree with. There are a lot of things that aren't being taught that I think should be. I have very strong opinions on what I consider to be "right" and "wrong" when it comes to a school curriculum.
But I do not believe I have the right to force those opinions. You've been taking that answer and suggesting that it means I think different opinions are "right."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
An adjective can't be "something."
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote: There are an awful lot of things taught children, by parents and by teachers, that I disagree with. There are a lot of things that aren't being taught that I think should be. I have very strong opinions on what I consider to be "right" and "wrong" when it comes to a school curriculum.
But I do not believe I have the right to force those opinions. You've been taking that answer and suggesting that it means I think different opinions are "right."
Ok, so why is the training camp idea different then?
quote: An adjective can't be "something."
Well then I apologise, I can only tell you how I meant it, and how I would have responded had you not dragged it out. It was not a trap so that I could go "OMG YOU ****ING RACIST!"
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:It was not a trap so that I could go "OMG YOU ****ING RACIST!"
People get upset by Grammar Nazis. *sympathetic*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I didn't drag it out. I answered the questions as asked, and the distinction was clear in my answers by the 8th post overall on this page when I said:
quote:I don't "think it's ok for a parent to decide they don't want their child to learn maths."
I don't think they should be forced to make their child learn math.
Dagonee
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Ok you didn't drag it out.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Dammit, I wasn't being a freakin' grammar nazi. I was answering the questions he asked. I was being careful about the wording I used because I wanted to express my views precisely.
Dagonee
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Damn you, katharina! You've upset him!
Ok, you weren't being a Grammar Nazi, Dag.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Ok, so why is the training camp idea different then?
OK, so what if the parent has the kid in an isolation chamber, with electrodes attached to sensitive areas, and there's this video screen in front of the kid's face, and the parent flashes images across the screen and delivers painful electric shocks whenever someone black is shown. Would that be "right?" Huh? Huh?
I don't think teaching your child to kill blacks is right. I don't know how to say that any more clearly.
I don't think I have the right to stop you from doing it. I don't know how to say that any more clearly, either.
If you're going to add more conditions, then I'll respond to those conditions.
"What if the kid is kept isolated?" "Then there may be charges of abuse necessary." "What if the kid is trained and allowed to shoot blacks for practice?" "Then both he and the parent and anyone else involved is charged with murder."
But the right to teach remains the same. At no point have I suggested I think it's right to kill blacks.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
***DISCLAIMER: I WILL NOT TAKE ANYONE'S COMMENTS AS BEING RACIST, YOU DO NOT NEED TO SAY YOU ARE NOT RACIST***
*****NOTE: PLEASE READ DISCLAIMER*****
That's seriously insane, Chris. Why should parents have that much control over their children? Simply because they manage to have sex and shoot the baby out successfully they can now brainwash this child anyway they want?
There are sometimes when somebody's morals interfere with logic. During these times, logic must be given priority. If it is going to help teens avoid unwanted pregnancies by teaching them about the consequences of sex, it makes sense to teach them about the consequences of sex.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You know what jebus, I was never concerned with being taken as a racist. I doubt Chris was either.
Dagonee
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote: I don't think teaching your child to kill blacks is right. I don't know how to say that any more clearly.
I can only take that comment one way, especially after having clarified my position already.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
That's seriously insane, Chris. Why should parents have that much control over their children? Simply because they manage to have sex and shoot the baby out successfully they can now brainwash this child anyway they want?
Yup.
I draw a distinction, as apparently you don't, between teaching a child it's okay to kill blacks and teaching a child exactly how to kill blacks and urging them to do so. Your questions ranged across both those options and treated them as equal.
Parents are welcome to brainwash their children however they like. Most opt to brainwash their children in a positive manner.
What, precisely, are you offering as an alternative? What level of governmental control would you like over parenting techniques? Who decides? Where do we get the manpower? Do parents have to submit their curriculum to an agency, or are the children tested on their black-killing abilities on an annual basis?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Can you make a post without being cynical, Chris?
The drawing the line argument is a silly one. It is necessary to draw a line on morality, simply because it is hard to draw a line doesn't make the idea bad.
Perhaps it's easy for you to just sit there and say "Most opt to brainwash their children in a positive manner." but parents that don't raise their children well can seriously damage them. Isn't that obvious?
What if we all adopted a religion that told us to stop learning history and to ignore records of the past?
There have to be basic rules for society. We learn maths, english and science so that society can advance. We learn history so that it doesn't repeat itself. It doesn't matter if a parent doesn't want their child to learn maths! Maybe the child will be happy he learned maths when he was older. Who cares what a parent wants? Parents are flawed by their nature of being human.
It is not the right of parents to **** up their child's life if they so choose.
You need to widen a child's chances at becoming what it wants to be, not limit them by imposing their parents brand of morality on them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It bloils down to being less afraid of the damage wrought by isolated parents (even if they gather into groups) teaching their children bad things than of the damage that could be wrought by a single, centrally controlled, mandatory teaching program.
Central standards are fine, because the check on them is withdrawal of children from school if those standards are acceptable to a broad range of parents.
Frankly, I find the idea that the government knows better than parents how to teach their kids very frightening.
Dagonee
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Frankly, I find the idea that the government knows better than parents how to teach their kids very frightening.
As do I.
I do not have problems with their being minimal standards in regards to education - in other words, if someone decides to take their kids out of public schools to homeschool them, I don't have a problem with the state demanding they meet some basic standards before being allowed to have a high school diploma (such as an exit exam that all seniors must pass to be awarded a diploma, so long as the homeschooled students aren't being held to a different standard than the publicly schooled kids).
But I absolutely believe the state has no business telling the parents what they can and cannot teach.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Jebus, what if I dig up a few studies that show that children are happier when they believe in a religion? Clearly parents raising kids in an athiest or agnostic home is bad for the child, and why should it be the parents right to do so? Better cart the kid off and make sure they get properly educated.
I'm curious though, what exactly are you suggesting we do about the problem of parents not being good enough? I find the idea of goverment laws about what parents can and can not tell the child to be more than reminscent of 1984.
Hobbes Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Hobbes you have made this into a religious thing, when it just simply isn't. One can be religious and still be taught the consequences of sex.
quote: I'm curious though, what exactly are you suggesting we do about the problem of parents not being good enough? I find the idea of goverment laws about what parents can and can not tell the child to be more than reminscent of 1984.
I'm suggesting the government has a limited responsibilty in assuring that children don't ruin their lives because of their parents morals. Perhaps this sounds like communism to you, but it's sounds like common sense to me.
Belle,
quote: But I absolutely believe the state has no business telling the parents what they can and cannot teach.
Why? What has a parent done that says they should be allowed to ruin their child's life if they wish?
I find it similar to the idea of abortion. "It's my child and I can do what I want with it".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Because there's no real consensus as to what teachings (or lack of teachings) will ruin a child's life.
Are you in favor of making the Amish teach their children more than they are taught now?
Dagonee
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Why? What has a parent done that says they should be allowed to ruin their child's life if they wish?
They gave birth to them.
It's different from abortion because the legalization of abortion depends on the fact that a fetus is not considered a child. If it were recognized as a separate human being, then Roe vs. Wade would be overturned.
The argument for abortion isn't "It's my child, I can do what I want with it", but rather "It's my body, I can do what I want with it."
I don't agree with that argument (because I think it is a child) but that is why it's a different situation.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote: Because there's no real consensus as to what teachings (or lack of teachings) will ruin a child's life.
But do we have a general consensus that unwanted pregnancies among teens are a bad thing for the teenager?
quote:Are you in favor of making the Amish teach their children more than they are taught now?
I'm in favour of making it mandatory for the Amish children to learn about the consequences of sex.
quote: They gave birth to them.
So?
Where exactly does it stop and why? Why do children have to go to school? Why aren't parents allowed to beat their children? Why aren't parents allowed to kill their children?
You say they know what's best for the child, why these limitations?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Where does it stop? Can they force parents to teach their children that Christianity/Judaism/Islam/Hindusim/Buhdism is false? Can they mandate the diet parents give their children? Can they force parents to give their children popular clothing because children in popular clothing aren't picked on as much?
You say you have to draw a line somewhere. My line is giving the government control over thought and/or speech.
Dagonee
[ November 12, 2004, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
But by forcing them to go to school they are controlling their thoughts to a limited extent.
My line is giving the parents total control over their children. I believe there needs to be a split control, with the government maintaining a very basic level of knowledge. Sexual education being one of these.
[ November 12, 2004, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: jebus202 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But parents don't have complete control over their children - there are child abuse and neglect laws, for instance.
Further, children cannot be "forced to go to school." Parents have several means of opting out - homeschooling, for instance.
Dagonee
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
My line is giving the parents total control over their children. I believe there needs to be a split control, with the government maintaining a very basic level of knowledge. Sexual education being one of these.
Then we could have skipped a whole page of argument. Such a line exists, and has been mentioned at several points here. The states do have a clearly stated list of material that children are expected to have learned at certain ages. It even mentions in the original CSM article that knowledge of reproductive contraception is on Texas' state-required list.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote: But parents don't have complete control over their children - there are child abuse and neglect laws, for instance.
Complete control over what they learn.
quote:Further, children cannot be "forced to go to school." Parents have several means of opting out - homeschooling, for instance.
And during homeschooling, what do they learn? They have the same basic requirements as in school. You know I didn't just mean the fact they are forced to go to that building called school.
quote:Then we could have skipped a whole page of argument. Such a line exists, and has been mentioned at several points here. The states do have a clearly stated list of material that children are expected to have learned at certain ages. It even mentions in the original CSM article that knowledge of reproductive contraception is on Texas' state-required list.
Yes and we're talking about wether they should have that on the state-required list.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Complete control over what they learn.
Since it seems necessary to say it again: "My line is giving the government control over thought and/or speech."
You responded saying parents shouldn't have total control of their children. I pointed out they don't.
If you simply disagree with "My line is giving the government control over thought and/or speech" then we simply disagree on a base principle.
And frankly, I consider your principle to be close to mini-fascism.
Dagonee
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Thinking what children learn should be somewhat regulated by the government is close to mini-fasiscm?
Only in America.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:The states do have a clearly stated list of material that children are expected to have learned at certain ages. It even mentions in the original CSM article that knowledge of reproductive contraception is on Texas' state-required list.
Yes and we're talking about wether they should have that on the state-required list.
We are? No one's mentioned that yet.
It's been said that parents should continue to have the right to pull their children from classes containing such information. Presumably the people here that agree with that would prefer to teach contraceptive information to their children themselves, with the proper emphasis on the attendant moral values important to the parent in question and without whatever bias the teacher might decide to include.
Had you started out with "I don't think parents should be permitted to pull their children from state-approved curriculum" or something I think I'd have had a better oidea of what you meant.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Thinking what children learn should be somewhat regulated by the government is close to mini-fasiscm?
What children learn is already somewhat regulated by the government. Your position seems to be that the government should take a stronger role in their learning, even in what is taught in the home.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Hey where have I said what they should be taught at home? If at home parents want to teach their children that contraceptives are evil, the go for it. But the unbiased information of contraception should be mandatory in schools.
quote: We are? No one's mentioned that yet.
It's been said that parents should continue to have the right to pull their children from classes containing such information. Presumably the people here that agree with that would prefer to teach contraceptive information to their children themselves, with the proper emphasis on the attendant moral values important to the parent in question and without whatever bias the teacher might decide to include.
Ah well I assumed if it was on the state-requirement list then the state had to ensure it was being learned.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Another note, I don't think it should be purely contraception, I think teaching abstinence until one is ready is important too.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Hey where have I said what they should be taught at home?
See, that's where I got confused when you asked if parents should be allowed to teach their kids that killing blacks was OK. I don't remember seeing that in any recent textbooks (even in Texas) so I assumed you meant at home.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Heh, I meant it as an extreme of the choosing what children should learn.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Thinking what children learn should be somewhat regulated by the government is close to mini-fasiscm?
Only in America.
Seriously, you consider the state's right to decide what a child should learn superior to the parents.
Yes, I'm sure only in America do people object to that.
No one has said the state shouldn't create curriculums for public schools. People are merely wishing to grant parents the right to opt out of those curriculums.
How would you enforce your requirement that children receive "acceptable" amounts and types of contraceptive information if they are homeschooled or in private schools?
Mandatory testing? "Put this condom on Johnny or your parents are going to jail!" Shut down schools that don't violate their basic religious principles by teaching something they consider immortal? Go collect the children not learning about the Pill and make them sit in reeducation centers?
You're not just talking about "regulation." You are mandating the use of the coercive power of the state to force children to learn particular things. Yeah, mini-fascism is appropriate.
Dagonee
[ November 12, 2004, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Here's the trick:
Parents who are involved enough in their children's lives are the ones who will either whole-heartedly support a curriculum of either abstinance or safe sex, or will choose to pull their children out of the classes in question.
Those parents, and their children, are not the ones to worry about. Those kids have parents who will engage them about this subject and prepare them for the world, whichever stance the parents choose to take on it.
The parents who could care less, who don't even know which classes their kids are taking, much less whether their kids are even in class... those are the kids that need these classes more than anyone else. They need to be told something, because you can believe that it won't be taught at home. Whether they are taught abstinance or safe sex (or hopefully both), at least they are being taught something.
Folks, it isn't the parents that are concerned about what their children learn that are going to ruin the world. It's the parents who are apathetic to their children's education and development that are causing such great societal problems.
Let the school system have a curriculum, any curriculum, for these kids. And have some faith in the educators, there are many professionals in the field and many, many folks who really care about the future we will all share.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's exactly what I want: a good curriculum, with a parental option to remove their children from it.
Dagonee
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:No one has said the state shouldn't create curriculums for public schools. People are merely wishing to grant parents the right to opt out of those curriculums.
How would you enforce your requirement that children receive "acceptable" amounts and types of contraceptive information if they are homeschooled or in private schools?
Mandatory testing? "Put this condom on Johnny or your parents are going to jail!" Shut down schools that don't violate their basic religious principles by teaching something they consider immortal? Go collect the children not learning about the Pill and make them sit in reeducation centers?
You're not just talking about "regulation." You are mandating the use of the coercive power of the state to force children to learn particular things. Yeah, mini-fascism is appropriate.
Hah, I love the way try to phrase it in the most evil manner you can, and associate what I'm saying with fasiscm.
I'm also mandating the coercive power of the state to force children to learn maths, the horror!
For homeschool children or private school children it's simply a matter of having them attend their local public school for one hour a week. I don't imagine there will be that many weeks, surely it can't take that long.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The question is what you intend to do when parents refuse to comply with your regulations.
Dagonee
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote: Shut down schools that don't violate their basic religious principles
Public schools shouldn't have religious principles. Schools should teach everything. Maths, English, Science, Religion, History, Geography, Sex Education... and leave it up to the child what they want to do.
But this is all in an ideal universe. I don't think learning about religion is actually mandatory in public schools.
quote:The question is what you intend to do when parents refuse to comply with your regulations.
The same thing that is done to any parent that tries to stop their child from going to school/being homschooled/educated in whatever form.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Hah, I love the way try to phrase it in the most evil manner you can, and associate what I'm saying with fasiscm.
I'm phrasing it so that the implications of your preferred policy aren't hidden behind nice little words and extreme examples.
You intend to make this mandatory. That implies some punishment if the requirement is not complied with. The punishment is, by definition, the coercive power of the state.
If you're not going to punish parents who refuse to comply, then you haven't made it mandatory. In which case your preferred policy is the same as mine - non-mandatory curriculums that are the default unless parents take positive steps to avoid them.
If you are making it mandatory and intend to punish parents who don't comply, then I stand by my characterization.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Public schools shouldn't have religious principles. Schools should teach everything. Maths, English, Science, Religion, History, Geography, Sex Education... and leave it up to the child what they want to do.
But this is all in an ideal universe. I don't think learning about religion is actually mandatory in public schools.
Good, avoid the question again. I'm talking about private religious schools. Do you close them down? Do you send in sex educators, mandating the use of private facilities spread a government message the owner of those facilities finds objectionable? Do you forcibly bus the kids elsewhere to make them take the class?
Dagonee
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I've tried to be as reasonable as possible in my wording. It is a small amount of control from the government. Try to make it sound evil all you want it won't change that fact.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's a small amount of control about what people say and think.
That's never a small thing.
Dagonee
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote: Good, avoid the question again. I'm talking about private religious schools. Do you close them down? Do you send in sex educators, mandating the use of private facilities spread a government message the owner of those facilities finds objectionable? Do you forcibly bus the kids elsewhere to make them take the class?
Would you quit with this persuasive language? Can't you talk normally?
Tell the kids they have to show up at [insert whatever their local public school is]. I suppose sending out a bus to pick them up could work, but they could just as easily use public transportation.
You're getting caught in the nitty-gritty to justify your position.
quote: It's a small amount of control about what people say and think.
That's never a small thing.
No. It's education. That gives people the ability to think for themselves. NOT making it mandatory is controlling what children say and think, but you're jsut letting the parents do it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Would you quit with this persuasive language? Can't you talk normally?
Tell the kids they have to show up at [insert whatever their local public school is]. I suppose sending out a bus to pick them up could work, but they could just as easily use public transportation.
You're getting caught in the nitty-gritty to justify your position.
I am talking normally. Which words don't you understand? or is it just that you don't like me making my case in a manner I see fit?
I'm attempting to make you face up to what you're mandating. If the kids don't show up, do you take them away from the parents? Do you send in armed guards to take them from the parochial school and cart them off to the acceptable sex education center?
The whole crux of a policy making something mandatory is what happens when people don't comply. Talking about what people will do when they are complying isn't dealing with the mandatory aspect of the policy.
quote:No. It's education. That gives people the ability to think for themselves. NOT making it mandatory is controlling what children say and think, but you're jsut letting the parents do it.
Who should decide what's necessary for these children to be able to think for themselves? If a majority think children need to be taught that homosexuality is "deviant" in order to allow them to think for themselves about the subject, would you want the government mandating that?
I strongly prefer policies that leave as many decisions as possible to individuals' consciences.
Dagonee
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:I'm attempting to make you face up to what you're mandating. If the kids don't show up, do you take them away from the parents? Do you send in armed guards to take them from the parochial school and cart them off to the acceptable sex education center?
The whole crux of a policy making something mandatory is what happens when people don't comply. Talking about what people will do when they are complying isn't dealing with the mandatory aspect of the policy.
Read above:
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The question is what you intend to do when parents refuse to comply with your regulations.
The same thing that is done to any parent that tries to stop their child from going to school/being homschooled/educated in whatever form.
You tell me what is done to those parents, you're the lawyer.
quote: Who should decide what's necessary for these children to be able to think for themselves? If a majority think children need to be taught that homosexuality is "deviant" in order to allow them to think for themselves about the subject, would you want the government mandating that?
But that's not leaving them to choose for themselves. That's a bias. Teaching people about homosexuality would involve giving them the facts of what causes homosexuality (If we even knew waht that was) and facts about homosexual life style maybe. THEN the children can decide for themselves wether homosexuals are good or evil.
[ November 12, 2004, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: jebus202 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And I'm frankly not willing to leave the decision of what's a bias up to our wonderful government.
Dagonee
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
You'd rather be sure of a bias being taught by trusting the parents?
[ November 12, 2004, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: jebus202 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'd rather be sure of leaving as much as possible up to the conscience of individuals. And at some point something will be proposed for an official curriculum that you dislike, and you'll be glad this right exists.
Dagonee
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I don't think there's any teaching of a subject I would object to as long as it was done in unbiased form. For example I would not accept a religion course that told children religion is definitly the asnwer. I would however support a religion class in which the facts of different religions are presented, outlining the history and ideals of those religions. I wouldn't accept a science call that claimed the theory of evolution was without a doubt what happened. But I would accept one that presents information on the theory of evolution (including the faults in the theory).
quote: I'd rather be sure of leaving as much as possible up to the conscience of individuals.
You mean the conscience of the individual's parents.
[ November 12, 2004, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: jebus202 ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I would rather allow for the bias of the parent over the bias of the government any day.
If the parents are biased, that's a small percentage of children that will be taught strange things.
If the government is biased then all the kids learn strange things. And this administration is pushing for more and more abstinence-only sex education, so if the government is permitted to exercise more control over what children are taught you might find that it doesn't agree with your preferences.
I would also like to point out that Dagonnee was in favor of more comprehensive sex ed back on the first page. He's not defending bad choices for parenting, he's defending the rights of the parents to make their own choices, good or bad.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, since parents are the ones raising the children.
Assuming the child can't choose for himself, someone has to choose for him. I prefer parents to paternal government.
Dagonee
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:I would rather allow for the bias of the parent over the bias of the government any day.
If the parents are biased, that's a small percentage of children that will be taught strange things.
If the government is biased then all the kids learn strange things. And this administration is pushing for more and more abstinence-only sex education, so if the government is permitted to exercise more control over what children are taught you might find that it doesn't agree with your preferences.
My point is we need to get rid of bias in education all together. This government isn't doing that.
And I think there would be a larger number of biased children due to their parents then you'd like to admit.
quote:I would also like to point out that Dagonnee was in favor of more comprehensive sex ed back on the first page. He's not defending bad choices for parenting, he's defending the rights of the parents to make their own choices, good or bad.
I understand that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The government cannot get rid of bias in education. No one can, especially about something as controversial as sex education.
Dagonee
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote: Yes, since parents are the ones raising the children.
Here we go again:
So?
quote:Assuming the child can't choose for himself, someone has to choose for him. I prefer parents to paternal government.
I'd prefer parents too, if they were unbiased. But ultimately I think the only way to make parents unbiased is to force unbiased education down the younger generations' throats.
[ November 12, 2004, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: jebus202 ]
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote: The government cannot get rid of bias in education. No one can, especially about something as controversial as sex education
If the government tried hard enough to get rid of bias, it could. Maybe not totally, but mostly.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The question then is, who decides?
Who gets to pick what is unbiased and what is not? Majority vote?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Information can't be biased. Stating facts isn't biased.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:I don't think there's any teaching of a subject I would object to as long as it was done in unbiased form.
jebus, the problem I see in your exchange with Dagonee here is that it is not possible to teach very much without any bias at all. We ALL have biases. Our biases are so much ingrained in who we are that for the most part, we don't even think to question them until they are challenged directly.
For example, I'm challenging your biased belief that it is possible to teach complex subjects like religion and history without bias. The question is not really whether or not there is bias -- it's whether the bias fits an acceptable norm. Bias isn't a bad thing necessarily. The real question becomes what is acceptable.
I, for example, don't find it acceptable to leave such touchy subjects as homosexuality and abortion to the public schools. I have my biases, and I feel it is important to stress certain truths to my child that I feel might be glossed over by people with different biases on these topics. But it doesn't even go to that level...I have problems with public school administrative philosophy and the vast, incredible amount of wasted money. My son currently gets a *much* better education in a private school that operates on a budget a tiny fraction of what public schools demand. This example in and of itself is educational -- I appreciate the economic example it represents. I do actually discuss the school budget with my son, since it's public knowledge and I think it's important to learn good spending habits -- plus then he understands how important his education is to us, and that it isn't something to be taken for granted.
See how much bias spawns out of what seems totally inocuous? Public schools have an impossible task -- they must teach a wide variety of topics within an acceptable range of bias, which is challenged by parents with conflicting biases of religion or philosophy, text book companies with avaricious biases, special interest groups with particular biases that they want impressed on a very impressionable market. Etc.
Bottom line is that "information" isn't unbiased. Data occasionally is, but even that can't be relied upon as perfectly unbiased since we don't always know how data was collected. And most children cannot assimilate pure data without interpretation. That's a level of critical thinking that requires quite a lot of maturity. And many topics cannot be viewed as pure data in any case.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Please understand that I agree in essence with what you're saying. Personally I do think parents should have to pass a good parenting test before they're allowed to breed. I do think schools should present facts in unbiased ways and all children should get complete educations.
However, I also recognize several real world problems with this.
Facts are not biased. The choice of which facts to include, and in what order, and with what emphasis, that is easily open to bias. And humans are prone to bias whether they like to admit it or not.
And you have yet to tell me who decides a fact is unbiased enough. Will we know it when we see it? It might be easy if we were discussing math, but it gets trickier when we discuss biology, trickier still with history, and downright dangerous when we discuss sex ed.
In June, 2001, the U.S. Surgeon General’s Office released a report on sexuality that endorsed comprehensive sex education that promotes abstinence but also permits distribution of condoms and other forms of contraception. The White House swiftly dismissed the report and said it "doesn’t reflect the values" of the Bush Administration. In the summer of 2001, the NIH released a report designed to undermine confidence in the effectiveness of condoms in preventing STDs and HIV. Simultaneously, CDC was instructed to remove all references to condom effectiveness from its website.
This administration was just re-elected by a clear majority of Americans. Why, exactly, do you think that the government will choose the facts for our children that you agree with?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Well this whole argument was sparked by Belle's comment:
quote: I think kids should get information about how their bodies work, and how the bodies of the opposite sex work. I think they should know what causes pregnancy and what can prevent it from happening. And, I think parents that don't want their children taught about birth control should have the opportunity to opt out and keep their kids out of the class that day.
I was arguing wether in this scenarion parents should be allowed to stop their children from learning it.
I suppose I did go too far, though, and slightly lost track of that, heh.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Geoff, I posted my criticism right away. Reading further, it seemed to me that you disagreed with what you said as much as I did. I'm puzzled as to why you said it then.
There are plenty of things that society can do to encourage good behavior besides punishing people for bad behavior. There were reasons why you didn't do bad things and (in a more neglected area) did good things besides you were afraid of getting caught and punished. Starting a look at ways to have a good society that starts out with saying "The only thing we can do is punish people when they do something wrong" is completely neglectful of these reasons.
There are plenty of things that work that don't at fall into this category. In fact, many of the things that fall into the category of reward/punishment have ironically pretty consistently failed in their object, leaving the people who are committed to them being the only solution to throw up their hands and say "This is just the best we can do. Success if impossible. People are just evil." However, there are other programs and ways of doing things that have shown to be much more successful.
In my experience, bad behavior generally rests on two sources, selfishness and short-sightedness. Punishment rarely effects these things positively. Autocratic externally imposed rewards don't generally do the trick either. But there are ways to decrease these things and increase those forces that oppose them. They are just more complex and require more thinking than the mechanistic reward/punishment style of doing things.
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
ARND I agree wholeheartedly with his sentiment, though I'm not particlularly religious at the moment.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)