Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long
There is a difference between offering condoms and candy bars and discussing how condoms and candy bars are uses. .
Wow, captain obvious there…no joke. That was not what I was talking about and so is a deflection...the significance of condoms to candy bars was that if they are distributed by folks students accept as authorities then they tend to automatically think whatever is being promoted is, at minimum, accepted and for many could easily be considered as something that is being encouraged.
If the school authorities were handing to all students dope smokers "bongs" to any students that wanted them just for “informational purposes” [ besides we know abstinence promotion regarding drugs doesn’t work, so might as well “inform” the kids”, right? ] you don't think some kids might think that the school might want them to go ahead and use them?
Don't care one iota about parents or churches in this matter. Information is being presented. That's it. If parents want to keep their children ignorant of that information, place them in parochial schools or home school them. The school imparts information. It is up to the parents to help the child apply value to that information. .
No, that’s not the state's right to impose that on children. You could use pornography as an extreme example. In an effort to educate, they show, for "informational purposes", the children porn...then it is up to the parents to help the child apply that knowledge? No. Stick to the job you are there to do, Teach kids math, science, grammar, etc... Some things are supposed to be left, are the prerogative of the folks who created their children. The state does not own our children, they cannot tell parents what their children, outside of academics, must know, must learn… that is
totalitarian styled thinking, that's what you are promoting. We send our children to school to learn valuable skills, not learn how to put a condom on a banana. Your side hase no right to impose this ideological crap on our children… and you should know better.
Our kids certainly need this information. I have no desire to see our children remain ignorant. Do you? .
No they certainly do not, that is just plain hogwash malarkey silliness. I have never heard positions less ignorant yet so arrogant. I want our children to learn the skills schools are supposed to teach, I will teach my children about the birds and the bees at home…it’s not like man never existed prior to sex ed in schools… Kids do not need to be taught in school how to procreate…or rather to "practice procreating", they have pretty much figured it out all through history without sex ed in school.
Rather, we should be concentrating at school for what the kids are there for, not what liberals want to indoctrinate them with.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/e...ally-in-math-and-science-tests-show.html?_r=0
In ranking, U.S. students trail global leaders - USATODAY.com
while all this signals more than just sex-ed-wasted opportunities to teach our kids what they really need to know to be globally competitive, it does say much about the way our liberals have taken over this American institution and done, from so many, too many, angles, such damage on our students…who are, compared to our competitors,
often a grade behind level of “ignorant”. How about we concentrate on what we need to, not what your liberal fantasies want us to.
Actually, what you have seem is people TRY to prove that the decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM was political and you have seen me destroy that argument every time it is presented. .
Nope, saw you get destroyed…and not partially, absolutely.
And, since you bring it up, what we have learned from the attempts at absinence only sex education is that it doesn't work. Research shows that fully informational sex education is FAR more effective at preventing STDs and teen pregnancy.
Checkmate. .
And other than abstenience sex ed works? Yeah, right. It is no business of the schools, that is up to the parents, schools should be concentrating on academics, not all the social and political indoctrination. And see, this is why I am probably not going to continue to discuss issues with you. For all your experience, you do not have the first clue as to how to debate. You cannot just declare victory on your statements backed up by what? Your statements? Then declare like a checkmate? That is middle school style debate, hands on hips, chin jutted out nah nah nah naaaaah nah-ish. Not one link, no logic [ except that what you say is supposed to be just automatically true and unassailable, like, right ], no proof, not even any evidence…and then checkmate, give me a break.
Since indoctrination is not what is happening, your comment above is irrelevant. Sorry. .
What do you mean indoctrination is not happening? Above you say the “information” HAS TO BE GIVEN WHETHER THE PARENT LIKES IT OR NOT, if the parents do not like it they can send their kids to “parochial schools or home school them.” Many parents do not have that choice, so then the state gets to tell their children what the state thinks is right or wrong, they have the children by law generally 8 hours or so a day, five days a week.
Meriam-Webster,
Indoctrinate = :
to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach 2: to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle. That would mean teaching the kids what you think about certain issues, your opinion that kids need to be taught what oral and anal and vaginal sex is, how its done, what a condom is, how to properly use it and further. Your attempt to give this instruction a value neutral appearance falls flat, of course you are teaching the kids the how to sex, taking the mystery and fear out of it, getting them one more step on their way to not first base, but home plate.
It is not like our students rank first in the world in education…how about we quit taking the time away from the subjects they really need schooled in, that are not controversial? Nah, that would not fit your liberal agenda, so you cannot give it up. And you don’t, you say, even recognize the fact that your side is doing so, amazing.
Force feeding them this liberal dribble…again if the schools suddenly decided to teach religion and creationism instead of concentrating on what they should be, math, English, science, history… and if people didn’t like it they could home school blah blah blah, I do not think you would be humming the same silly tune. Checkmate. [
see how silly that looks for somebody to just declare that? But its what you do, empty proclamations based on nothing but your other proclamations].
Debated tons. Haven't seen anything from you that I haven't seen scores of times and haven't easily defeated before. .
Yeah yeah yeah, as per usual, all talk no show.
It is not my fault that my opponents often present logical fallacies because that's all they've got. .
What a joke. Why don’t you describe for us your definition of a logical fallacy… just so we’ll know what we are laughing at?
Your experience is your experience. In mine, cons are the first ones to through out the ad homs and EASILY far nastier than libs. Mostly because these are the entirety of their arsenal of debate.
So, now that we have dispensed with the partisan hackery, how about discussing the topic. .
No, now you need to concentrate on your own partisan hackery… you really haven’t said anything of substance yet, what is there to debate against?
Difference is, I presented facts. You did not.
I count about two statements of "fact", no actual proof of such, in your end of the whole discussion…then we gotta count up all the whoppers… and its just not worth it. Proved you wrong on 1. Giving “information” can easily be equated with acceptance if given by “authority figures” 2. That you do not care what the parents/churches think, your way must be the way or it’s the highway = indoctrination. 3. That without the information that your side gives, then students would then become “ignorant”. With the US being considered behind and slipping globally in education 4. You seem to have a high opinion of your “debate skills” that objective others may question heartily. Well, you can take the "may" out of that sentence and it would be even more accurate. 5. Much doubt implicated in the accuracy of your knowledge of what a “logical fallacy” actually is. 6. Unwilling to give anything but your partisan view of which side actually engages in ad hom and other non debate winning tactics… going on to call my views partisan hackery [ an ad hom without anything but your statements to back it up ]…laughable….
