|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 20, 2008 11:51:32 GMT -8
Hi Michelle, I’d like to address just one of the topics you raised. I wrote: To which you responded: You have no doubt heard the phrase “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world”. I have more to say about this, but before I do, I wanted piggy-back something that Mo also said earlier: Mo said: Mo, who’s over-dramatizing now? Need I remind you that it was through public education that the Nazi’s put a lot of their efforts into indoctrinating the populace about “racial purity”? Here’s a quick article on that I found: www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Nazis_Education.htmYou have also expressed your academic interest in the sociology of Islam. You no doubt realize that much of that indoctrination (including the terroristic aspects of it) are taught in public education. So there is a two-way street there my friend. Will there be abuse of power? Certainly! But I for one would rather that it be the extremely rare case of parental abuse of power than have it be the norm through mass-indoctrination in public school. Michelle, I agree that sex ed isn’t tantamount to government oppression. And that’s not what I was saying. Oppression usually comes in small, undetectable steps. Otherwise, there is usually mass rebellion and it fails. That’s why I used the phrase “ eroding liberties”. One example: you may or may not be familiar with the recent scare in California surrounding the rights of parents to home school. Although it was blown out of proportion by home school advocates, there were indeed alarming statements from judges that suggested that every child should be in public school for the sake of “social unity”. These are scary statements to some, and it's understandable why they are. As a father who believes in the right for parents to educate their own children (without state imposition), I’m very aware that there is much opposition to it. If parents lose their ability to choose when, where, how to educate the children they have a responsibility before God to raise, I would personally classify that as oppression. I have already admitted there will be a certain amount of abuse and dereliction of duty, but that to me is not worth turning it over to the state. Whether it's sex ed, evolution, or whatever, I personally feel that parents should be able choose how and when their kids will be educated. That’s just my opinion.  |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 21, 2008 4:34:21 GMT -8
Chris, I'll respond to your last post first because it needs some clarification. I wanted piggy-back something that Mo also said earlier: Mo said: Mo, who’s over-dramatizing now? Need I remind you that it was through public education that the Nazi’s put a lot of their efforts into indoctrinating the populace about “racial purity”? Here’s a quick article on that I found: www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Nazis_Education.htmYou have also expressed your academic interest in the sociology of Islam. You no doubt realize that much of that indoctrination (including the terroristic aspects of it) are taught in public education. So there is a two-way street there my friend. Will there be abuse of power? Certainly! But I for one would rather that it be the extremely rare case of parental abuse of power than have it be the norm through mass-indoctrination in public school. I'm a bit puzzled about this paragraph because you are twisting what I was saying. I don't know if I failed to express myself clearly again or if you are not taking enough time to cogitate about my words. I hope you are not just blocking what I have to say because you know that I come from a different direction than you. And of course I hope you aren't twisting my arguments on purpose. Let me go to the specific points to show what I mean: Mo, who’s over-dramatizing now? Need I remind you that it was through public education that the Nazi’s put a lot of their efforts into indoctrinating the populace about “racial purity”? This is simply brazen. I think I emphasized more than once that power needs to be balanced. This means that neither the state nor the parents may have a monopoly on the education of children. It is precisely the Nazi era that taught us this lesson. Now you are putting it as if I was arguing for a disempowerment of parents in favor of the State. It’s a total twist of the point I was making. Because until then, the only worry that had been expressed (concerning the abuse of power) was that the State could abuse its power. And I showed the other side of the coin; namely that parents are just as likely to abuse their power if they get too much of it. This is the very nature of power:
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton
Then there is the first part where you are asking “who is dramatizing now”. If you read my passage over again you’ll see that I used “ an extreme” example to illustrate what I meant. Extreme examples are not representative. What they do is that they show worst-case scenarios. They have a function of distillation: They get rid of confusing side aspects and reveal the essence of the point one is trying to make. The debate-partner is called upon to translate the extreme example to the situation as a whole and by doing so to understand the point the other was trying to make. Not for one second have I argued that the majority of the parents are as extreme as the example I used. You have also expressed your academic interest in the sociology of Islam. You no doubt realize that much of that indoctrination (including the terroristic aspects of it) are taught in public education. First off I’d like to ask you what kind of indoctrination you are referring to (Islam as a concept of the enemy or the opposite or what?  ). I have no idea what kids are being taught in the US. Maybe you can fill me in. What I know for certain (Because this is the subject of my final thesis at the university and I’m reading heaps of literature on that topic) is that the main impact on the public opinion about Islam comes from the media. That doesn’t mean that misinformation can’t or doesn’t happen in schools. I’m going to repeat for the sake of my point that parents have the right, the power and the chance to give their children their own version of the story and by doing so challenging what the kids have learned from their teachers. This will also have the beneficial effect that children will learn to critically deal with sources and to be skeptical. Through various perspectives they may learn that the only sane way to look at the world is through differentiation. So there is a two-way street there my friend. And this statement takes the cake! After I’ve been arguing that power needs to be balanced because this is a two way street you now try to teach me it is a two way street.  But I for one would rather that it be the extremely rare case of parental abuse of power than have it be the norm through mass-indoctrination in public school. “extremely rare case of parental abuse of power”… This is just another one of your assertions. I’d like to ask you a question: Are you going to teach your children evolution? And if so, how? Are you qualified for this? Will you give it the authority it deserves according to the vast majority of scientists? Will you point out that evolution is the best evidence-based* explanation for the development of life and that the record of evidence supporting it is overwhelming? Are you going to make sure your kids learn all about it? Or will you beat it down as merely a hypothesis lacking of evidence? Will you provide them with the same amount of uninformation you yourself admitted to possess? This, in my opinion already is abuse of power. And this abuse doesn’t happen “extreme rarely” or accidentally. Since the majority of parents are laymen in matters of higher education they will logically fail to provide their children with the information they deserve. Parents, if conferred upon with the monopoly on their children’s education will merely pass on their own knowledge which in most cases doesn’t fulfill the standards of public education. They will select the information or the emphasis put on the information according to THEIR subjective world view. Sometimes unconsciously, sometimes deliberately. Homeschooling parents, who think evolution is crap and hence decide to skip it or just to mention it quickly are abusing their power and fail the trust that has been put into them by the state. I don’t know if there are regulations which determine whether parents may or may not homeschool their children. I really hope there are. The thought of parents who have never seen a university from the inside being the only teachers of their children is really terrifying. Apparently I don’t share the same trust in the discernment of the people as you do Chris. Maybe it is because of sociology, maybe it is because I've seen with my own eyes the vast amount of stupidity. Maybe it is because of the history of my country. Not only did the Third Reich reveal the absolute abuse of power by the government but also the absolute incompetence of the regular crowd. If only more people would learn that lesson. *Note that creationism and intelligent design don’t fulfill scientific standards and are hence considered pseudo-science, even by Christian scientists. References for this statement are to be found in the evolution thread, reply #22. To put such teachings on the same level as evolution is a crime in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 21, 2008 9:42:51 GMT -8
Hey Chris, Here is my reply to your previous post. My opinion is just that, an opinion, a judgment. Just like yours and everyone else’s. That’s what democracy is all about, people making judgments and having a vote based on those judgments. May I translate that as a “I don’t have any evidence to back up my rejection of sexual education in schools”? One thing that is always striking me when I’m discussing with you is how you beat around the bush. Have you been in a debate club or in a “how to evade unpleasant questions like a politician”-seminar? Gee, we could save so much time if you just spoke it out directly Yes, we are exchanging our opinions here. But you are applying double standards when it comes to evaluating an opinion. If my position is to be believed, statistics showing a correlation between general education and pregnancy are not sufficient, but when it comes to defending your position an ABC special from the past about general education (I repeat, general education not sexual education) is fair enough. Common Chris. Listen, I do think there are a lot differences between the German and the American educational system. I get the feeling that there’s a real chance we are talking past each other big time. For instance, in Germany school education is free by constitution. Tax money is being used, yes, but you don’t have to save money to send somebody to school. My university education costs around 500€ (around 720$) each year (that is two semesters). So if we compare this to the 8-10.000$ you named, I can easily understand why you are annoyed. Especially when we take a look at the results of the PISA-study of 2006 (http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/13/39725224.pdf). The study shows that the 15 year old US-Americans are “significantly below the international average” in natural sciences (p.22) and mathematics (p.53) (I don’t know why they don’t appear in the statistic of reading performance). All this gives your opinion weight that the educational system of your country isn’t working well. However, and this is important, this doesn’t mean that one could do without broad public education. Only that public education needs improvement. Especially regarding the ever increasing international competition in the course of globalization it is very necessary that the USA and the entire West breed competence if we don’t want our companies to move overseas. What is the remedy? Homeschooling? Cutting down the content of the education to a minimum? I absolutely don’t think so. But I’m not an expert on such things. Maybe we should ask the Canadians what they do to get such brilliant results. I wouldn’t know. But we’ve moved off-topic. This thread isn’t about how to improve the general public education. This is about sexual education. The USA has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the West. More than 5 times higher than Germany. I’m asking you Chris, if it hasn't got anything to do with public school education, why do you think this is so? Please answer directly, no beating around the bush. The charts you provided don’t make the case for sex ed (and especially not your list of “essentials”) IMO because they are talking about general education. As a sociologist, you ought to know there are many different factors that can be attributed to that correlation (demographic, culture, income level, etc.) Thanks for teaching me how to deal with statistics. After all, I said myself that there are more factors determining such statistics. However, here’s what it comes down to: Education. Education is the alpha and the omega. Of course, as you said, income for instance plays a part. But who are those who have the most income? Right, the educated people. I don’t know the numbers of the USA but I feel confident enough to lean out of the window here: Take the statistics of long term unemployed people and I’ll make the prophecy that the majority has an educational level below the US average. Take the people in prison and I predict that the majority has a substandard education. Take the people of the lowest social classes and I predict they have the lowest grade of education. A German saying says: “Knowledge is power”. And this is true in so many ways. Education determines on what part of the food chain you’ll find yourself. Of course this is a vicious circle: those who come from uneducated family backgrounds are likely to remain uneducated themselves. What can be done to break such a cricle is a different question. What's importnat is the immense significance of education. As the statistic I provided shows, uneducated teenagers are the most likely to become pregnant. Education is the key. Education must be improved. And even though the final link is missing, namely a statistic that proves the efficacy of sexual education, I dare say that the educated teenagers don’t know how to use contraceptives because of Shakespeare… |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 21, 2008 13:44:42 GMT -8
Mo, I will respond to your last 2 posts (later, I don't have time at the present), but after that, I'm thinking this thread will likely be exhausted and frankly, I'm getting exhausted keeping it alive. We're beating a dead horse at this point.  We do seem to have a hard time understanding one another and we're obviously approaching the subject from polar opposite ideological perspectives, so I think this will just have to be another one of those "agree to disagree" cases. Be back later.... |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 21, 2008 21:23:45 GMT -8
Ok Mo, Here is the first of what I hope to be the final two responses to you on this thread. you wrote: I guess I don’t understand the difference in what you’re suggesting. Do you mean to tell me that parents didn’t have access to their kids when they got home every night to counter the racial purity brainwashing they received at school during the day? Or are you saying that the parents already agreed with the Nazis and didn’t bother? Certainly there must have been some reasonable parents in Germany, so how did it get such a foothold in the cultural thinking? If the state has the right to teach my minor child things I disagree with, how is it fair that I have to then put all the effort into undoing the damage? Like I said before, we are approaching this with a completely opposite premise. You seem to be saying that “children are not the property of the parents”, and I agree. But neither are they the property of the state. And in my view, parents have the responsibility to raise and educate their children to the best of their ability and conscience until they reach adulthood. From there, they are culpable for their own decisions and are free to do and learn whatever they choose. This may sound like an imbalance of power to you, but let’s remember that we’re really only talking about 2 or 3 years here with the subject matter we’re discussing. It’s not like derelict parents are able to keep things from their kids forever. In my view, the state has little business in the affairs of the family outside of blatant harm to the child. you wrote: Let me get this straight. When I say something like that are saying you can legitimately tell me (using your words): But when it’s reversed, it’s somehow different? You don’t see a double standard there Mo? you wrote: I’m not talking about the U.S. or Western countries at all. I’m talking about places like Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, etc. where the poison is spoon fed to kids at a very early age in public schools. Whether or not we’re still homeschooling at that point, there probably will be at least some discussion about that topic, yes. Am I qualified to read a text book and discuss it with my kids? I think so. Or do I need a phD in molecular biology? Good heavens, I better get started on that, I've only 8 years left to get it done.  Will I use the fallacy of Appeal to Authority to convince them it’s true? Nah, I’ll let them make up their own minds. Oh, do you mean will I give them your opinion? Not bloody likely. Again, they can reach whatever conclusion ALL the facts lead them to. Well, you know? Believe it or not, there are still some of us un-edu-ma-cated backwoods “hillbillies” (as you put it) who question the theory. But I think I can at least get us past the high school level. I gots me a fair bit schoolin’. Heck, I can even spell biologee.  you wrote: I see, if us hillbilly parents don’t teach our kids the bare essentials they need to get by in life (like evolution), it’s an abuse of power. By the way, who gets to decide what the “standards of public education” are anyway? Who decides it in Islamic countries? Who decided it in Nazi Germany? And the state never does that right? Um, you better check your stats a bit more closely. nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/TableDisplay.asp?TablePath=TablesHTML/table_3.aspMost homeschool parents do have plenty a collegin’. Less than 25% have less than a college education. And they’re only teaching up through high school anyways. My wife has a teaching degree herself and was a professional teacher before we had kids. What exactly do you think you need to know in order to teach children how to read and write? Your whole post makes my point. What’s terrifying to me is that there are people in public office that share the same low opinion of parental competency as you do and would like nothing more than to strip parents of their right to educate their own children. You can mock it all you want, but the state stepping in and unduly imposing some questionable “standard of public education” is indeed the first step to a 1984 scenario IMO. But since I still live in a society that allows democracy to rule (for the most part), I for one will vote to retain that right. More to come… |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 22, 2008 1:27:52 GMT -8
I guess I don’t understand the difference in what you’re suggesting. Do you mean to tell me that parents didn’t have access to their kids when they got home every night to counter the racial purity brainwashing they received at school during the day? Or are you saying that the parents already agreed with the Nazis and didn’t bother? Certainly there must have been some reasonable parents in Germany, so how did it get such a foothold in the cultural thinking? I’m not sure if I understand the purpose of the question. I mean, do you want me to make a historical discourse about how Hitler came to power? Or are you trying to say that National Socialism got such a foothold through public schools? The latter is nonsense. The Nazi movement didn’t get where it got through the schools. Sure, once they had the power they used schools to reproduce their ideology just like every State be it democratic, capitalistic, communistic, islamic, despotic, monarchic or whatever. This much is self evident. The thing is that they already HAD the power when they took control of the schools. The time span in which Hitler had his go in Germany was 12 years. From his rise in 1933 until his suicide in 1945. The time Hitler had to establish his ideology untroubled was before the war began: 6 years. This is hardly enough time to establish an ideology merely through school education. The truth is that Hitler hit the spot of the Germans of that particular time. A nation in economical depression, carrying the burdens of the Treaty of Versailles. They had to accept the full responsibility for WW 1, lost territory, and had to pay reparation. For the people of that time it was an unfathomable humiliation. Pride breeds a lot of evil. Hitler gave them prospects to rise from the ashes. To get the economy going, to lead them back to glory. To let the Empire literally strike back. It were adults that unleashed Hitler and it were adults that executed his commands. Of course the kids were brainwashed in schools. But not only there. They got a good dosage of Nazi ideology in the media, in their churches, in their youth organizations, and last but not least: at home! The truth of the matter is: As much as I would love to say that the silent majority was against Hitler, that parents secretly worked against Nazi education, and so on, there is no evidence for that. On the contrary, all the evidence points at the fact that the people loved their Führer. They would later claim that they didn’t know about Auschwitz and the holocaust. I even got to hear old people argue that Hitler didn’t know about Auschwitz himself: “He was such a fine gentleman, he would have never allowed such a thing”. Can you believe it?? For me, there is no excuse. The public pogroms that took place were visible for everybody and even IF the majority condemned them they didn’t step up. Back to the topic at hand: The lesson of that period, which manifested itself in the new constitution and political order of Germany, was that power may never again be concentrated. The power is split to the executive, the parliament (representing the people) and the judicative. If the state has the right to teach my minor child things I disagree with, how is it fair that I have to then put all the effort into undoing the damage? This cuts both ways. We agree that our children are neither the state’s nor our property. But this means they have a right to hear about everything from both sides. You have a right to educate your children and the state has a right to educate it’s state residents. You don’t think it’s fair, I do think it’s fair, you’re gonna take the legal measures in order to have your way and I’m gonna take the legal measures to have it my way. We agree to disagree. But since we live in two different countries we may be lucky enough to both get our way And in my view, parents have the responsibility to raise and educate their children to the best of their ability and conscience until they reach adulthood. From there, they are culpable for their own decisions and are free to do and learn whatever they choose. This may sound like an imbalance of power to you, but let’s remember that we’re really only talking about 2 or 3 years here with the subject matter we’re discussing. It’s not like derelict parents are able to keep things from their kids forever. In my view, the state has little business in the affairs of the family outside of blatant harm to the child. And when is the harm blatant? I’m sure we won’t agree on that either.  What is unfair about you’re request is that parents according to you should get the monopoly on education for the decisive period. There’s a saying that goes like: “Was Hännschen nicht lernt, lernt Hans nimmermehr” (What little Joe didn’t learn, old Joe won’t learn either). My dictionary says the equivalent would be “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks”. I don’t wanna put it that drastically, but it is a fact that the education one gets during his childhood and adolescence is fundamental for the later ways. The “only” 2-3 years of puberty you are referring to (I’d say at least 5 years) are enough for a pregnancy. As the record shows, Americans are doing something wrong there. Let me get this straight. When I say something like that are saying you can legitimately tell me (using your words): But when it’s reversed, it’s somehow different? You don’t see a double standard there Mo? Nope, no double standards here. There’s a huge difference in saying “I’m gonna use an extreme example to illustrate what I mean” and “This is indeed the first step to a 1984 scenario”. The former is a deliberate and open exaggeration in order to explain something, the latter is giving an opinion about how things actually are. I’m not talking about the U.S. or Western countries at all. I’m talking about places like Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, etc. where the poison is spoon fed to kids at a very early age in public schools. Oh! Sorry dude, I didn’t get that (picture me slapping my hand on the forehead). Now I see what you mean. Look, the school is a major instrument of the state in order to reproduce its own ideology. NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT! As I said long before, your skepticism has it’s place. What is happening now in schools in Iran can be compared to Nazi Germany: Children will learn that the USA are the devil and when they come home their parents will repeat that. I don’t think it would really help to give the parents the monopoly on education cause I guess they will probably teach the same. This problem deserves a thread of its own. The comparison between the Middle East and the West however isn’t quite fair. We are in a position that allows us to vote our representants and actually change something. The parents have all the possibilities to know what is being taught and to protest. Just like you do. Nobody is questioning that. It’s just that we disagree as regards content. Nah, I’ll let them make up their own minds. Hm, so let’s assume for a second that despite all the Christian upbringing your son will decide to be an atheist. I know, I know, it’s fairly improbable but let’s play the game. So he tells you he doesn’t believe in God anymore. Are you telling me you’re just gonna accept that? As to use your own words: “they can reach whatever conclusion ALL the facts lead them to”? I don’t believe a word of that. And what does “ALL the facts” mean anyway? We’ll surely agree that nobody on earth could possibly provide ALL the facts. You’ll have to make a selection. You’re already making a selection when you decide which topics YOU focus on for your own peace of mind. Or did you mean all YOUR facts? I don’t think one or two teachers can gather the same amount of expertise as a bunch of teachers. I see, if us hillbilly parents don’t teach our kids the bare essentials they need to get by in life (like evolution), it’s an abuse of power. By the way, who gets to decide what the “standards of public education” are anyway? Where I live education is in the hand of the individual federal States. The responsible for “the standards of public education” is the minister of education, who is being appointed by the prime minister of the State. The prime Minister is being elected by the parliament. The members of the parliament are voted by the people. Education is always an issue in campaigns, ultimately, the people decide. Who decides it in Islamic countries? Who decided it in Nazi Germany? I frankly don’t know how much influence the people have or had in these countries. I’d daresay less than we have. And the state never does that right? Who is the state? A single individual? It takes the entire democratic progress for an idea to become a law. Um, you better check your stats a bit more closely. What are you talking about? I didn’t cite a statistic. I merely asked a question. What exactly do you think you need to know in order to teach children how to read and write? Is that all you teach your children?  What’s terrifying to me is that there are people in public office that share the same low opinion of parental competency as you do and would like nothing more than to strip parents of their right to educate their own children. You can mock it all you want, but the state stepping in and unduly imposing some questionable “standard of public education” is indeed the first step to a 1984 scenario IMO. Who decides when the action of the state is “unduly”? You? Me? Everyone for himself? There seems to be disagreement on that. How do democracies handle such disagreements? They let the majority decide. Do as you’ve said, vote a representative for your case. Vote Mrs. Palin. Hillbillies must vote hillbillies (jk  ) As for your 1984 scenario: I think you are simply exaggerating but that is also nothing more than an opinion. Next thing you’re gonna tell me is that the state is oppressing your freedom to kill someone (deliberate exaggeration). Look, you are entitled to your opinion. It’s like you’ve said: We are beating a dead horse. Your second reply shall be the last word of our debate. I'll keep on posting my thoughts on sex ed though. |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 22, 2008 8:45:02 GMT -8
Ok Mo, I’m hoping this will be my last post on this thread. I’m not going to comment on your mockery of my debating style, it’s pointless. The difference being that the study I cited was DIRECTLY related to my point where yours was false cause argument that wasn’t proven by the statistic. You wrote: Wow I’m jealous. No wonder you have so much time to post on Christian boards . Do you have a job? I had to work full-time and go to school full-time to get my college education. This left absolutely no time for socializing and fun stuff. I’m not knocking it, but I’d rather have had it your way. You wrote: I was citing the cost for K-12, not university. But if taxpayers are paying for every person’s free university education, I’d hazard a guess that your cost per student/per year is much higher overall. Not out of your own pocket, but collectively. SO I’d be chapped about that also. You wrote: I don’t disagree with you here. My contention is that our government needs to be much more responsible with taxpayer funded public education and should provide justification for it's programs. I’m in favor of a voucher system that would allow parents to choose where to have their kids educated. Then we’d have school districts taking their budget, curriculum, and teacher selection seriously because they’d essentially be competing for students. But that’s a different thread altogether. ![]() crombiec.googlepages.com/icon_offtopic.gif [/img] You wrote: I feel like I need to clarify here. I’m NOT suggesting we dissolve public education in favor of home schooling. I’m glad that we still have the freedom in this country to make that choice, but I realize it’s not for everyone. I feel very blessed to be in a position to homeschool and have a wife that wants (and loves) to do it. But not everyone has those circumstances and not everyone thinks it’s ideal. I’m glad there are choices and I support public education. However, I do think that education can (and has) become more than what is necessary and is a unnecessary burden on taxpayers. I’m also aware that most people disagree with me. My own district just voted last year to approve the construction of a multi-million dollar technology center at the high school that is costing me an extra $400-$500 per year in property taxes for the next 20 years! The technology center will have been long since obsolete by that time, but we’ll still be paying on it. Please don’t give me an ultimatum with an excluded middle. I’ve already told you I don’t know why. But neither have you provided evidence that there is a causal relationship between the stat and sex ed. You even admitted you can’t. That’s not beating around the bush, but I’m not going to admit you’re right without evidence either. Why do you leave culture out of the equation? It’s not just education, demographic, income level, etc. Culture plays a huge role in my opinion. It used to be a stigma for a girl to have a “reputation”, now it’s no big deal. The sexual revolution made a huge impact on how our nation (and indeed the world) thinks about sex, probably for both good and bad. I’m going to now go back to some of the earlier threads and summarize the agreements and disagreements we have, and then I’m going to leave it alone. Early on, you wrote: And still later… This we agree on (although you contradicted that later on in the thread saying the parents do not have “sovereignty”). The difference is, you’ve given up on the theory and I haven’t. I still believe that the majority of parents love their kids enough to want to do the right thing. They just need encouragement education to do so. The studies I’ve seen (and have shown in this thread) reveal the opposite is true. And when I asked you to provide stats on the success of sex ed. You wrote: I do appreciate your honesty on that Mo. It’s the basis of my suspicion that the majority of the content of sex ed in schools is there on a hunch (not scientific studies) that it will make a difference that is worth putting it in public education at taxpayer expense. I would still like to see the evidence that it makes any significant impact on the social problems. If it does, then I don’t mind paying for it. However….you also wrote: And.. This is where I, and probably many others here, would disagree on in your list of sex ed “essentials” in schools. I think these things go far beyond “education” to normalizing and even encouraging things that many people don’t want to be normalized and encouraged. My main contention (and our main difference) is that parents are the key, not necessarily public education. I drive by a billboard every day on the way to work that has a picture of a teenage boy and girl snuggling on the couch watching TV (apparently unsupervised) and the caption reads: “Talk to your teen about sex…everyone else is”. That to me is a powerful message. If I were the father of a teenage daughter who had been putting off “the talk”, I’d be highly motivated by a message like that. I think more messages like that are needed and I’d love to see the results of such a campaign (if there are to be any). I also want to re-iterate that I have no axe to grind here. It really doesn’t bother me that CERTAIN elements of sex ed are in public schools. But I also think that the general push goes too far for my (and most parents’) taste and if given the vote, I’d choose to have it remain in the realm of parental “sovereignty” (using your word). Anyway, feel free to continue to post your thoughts, but I think I’ve expressed everything I want to on the matter. P.S. Regarding the Nazi thing, thanks for the history lesson. But I still don’t see how your suggested balance of power is any different. Maybe I’m just dull. We’ll just have to disagree on that. Given that children are not cognitively equal to adults, I don't think they should have the same access to information adults have because they are not yet capable of fully processing and discerning it. I don't think the state has a right to impose it's ideology into the household of Americans any more than I think the church does. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Feb 14, 2009 1:48:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 21, 2009 5:33:43 GMT -8
Well my view on Sexual education is that it is a lesser of two evils. I know there are moral absolutists who would argue that teaching kids about safer sex practices is tacidly endorsing safe premarital sex. I would argue that it is not. I also consider abortion and absolute evil, and since we live in a civilization where early trimester abortion on demand is considered a woman constitutional right under present case law, and that furthermore, we have a President in office who is extremely pro choice and a large democratic majority in both the House and Senate, abortion on demand is not going anywhere anytime soon. It is clear that simply telling kids that sex before marriage is bad is not going to get the job done. A few lectures is not going to override 200,000 years of mating instincts. Therefore it makes sense to have contraception available to young people because since there is nothing that can be legally done to prevent them from having an abortion should they become pregnant (in most states there are not even parental consent laws) the best we can do is take the lesser of to evils and work to prevent as many unwanted conceptions as possible. I believe that life begins at conception and that it is precious. To me preventing the unwanted conceptions will prevent the murder of those precious lives. Is it pretty? NO! Is it ideal? NO! but we do not live in an ideal world, we live in the real world, and I believe that in the real world taking the lesser of two evils is the best course of action. Even Bristol Palin is against abstinence only education www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/bristol.palin.interview/ she says its good in principal but not realistic. She should know. She made the right choice and had her babies, but with a constitutional right to abortion there are many young ladies who if put in Bristol's shoes would choose to terminate the pregnancy. As a result I begrudgingly support sex education that includes detailed discussion of contraception and how to obtain it. I know I am going to catch hell for this |
|
). I have no idea what kids are being taught in the US. Maybe you can fill me in.
)