Slashdot Mirror
Wisconsin DA Threatens Arrests Over Sex Ed
WrongSizeGlass writes "USA Today is reporting that the DA of Juneau County, Wisconsin, is warning teachers that they could face arrest over the new sex-ed curriculum. District Attorney Scott Southworth said a new state law that requires students learn to use condoms and other contraceptives 'promotes the sexualization — and sexual assault — of our children.' Southworth also said, 'I'm not looking to charge any teachers. I've got enough work to do.'"
DA: Hey Legislative Branch, your new law on sex-ed requires teachers to break your old law on sexual misconduct. Please fix. I'd rather not have to charge all the teachers in the state.
Legislator: Duh, say what? I don't write no contradictory laws.
DA: See you in court!
The hypocrisy in US in unbelievable. Violence and killing people is all okay in TV, but when it's teaching persons about natural human function like sex it's all bad and must be hidden.
Even while I live in Europe and sexuality is quite okayish here, my parents never taught anything about it. I learned it from school and from friends. And let me say this, what they taught in school was probably a lot more responsible than what my friends told me.
Sometimes I get the feeling that all of the hate about sexuality is from older people who don't know how to get, don't have the mindset to get it or are angry at other people who have fun doing it. After all, when you're adult it's one of the most fun things to do.
Kids are going to have sex. That's the long and short of it. Would you rather that they do it not knowing how to be safe and responsible? Or would you rather that they have the knowledge of how to use contraceptives to reduce the risk of pregnancy and STDs? We teach kids how to do everything else safely, but we think, "Well, kids shouldn't be having sex anyway, so if we don't tell them about it, they won't do it." Hogwash.
Excuse me, but what does this story have to do with my rights online at all? Or how is this a story worth of "news for nerds"?
There is no tech relevance. It's really a local educational issue that stuff like this happens in every district.
Slashdot editors really need to start picking up the slack. It's getting pretty thin pickings here nowadays.
Unless this class is taught online, what does it have to do with YRO?
Hey /., stop trying to be reddit or digg. plz. k. thx.
No sig for you!!
Just like using an antivirus program promotes making viruses.
Just because you share your name with an Alaska city doesn't mean you have to be as dumb as Sarah Palin.
Southworth also said 'I'm not looking to charge any teachers, I've got enough work to do.'"
Apparently not. Like the recent nullification suits brought to defeat health care reform, not even the originators believe there is any merit to these actions. This is all about grandstanding to promote a particular ideology at tax payer expense. It's just a shame this guy is terrorizing teachers in the process.
Gee, is this the same Scott Harold Southworth who was named a "CNN Hero" when he adopted a crippled Iraqi boy when he was deployed with the WI National Guard? Even though he's not married?
from: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/15/sm.02.html
And so now he thinks sex education is child abuse?
-=Maggie Leber=-
I'd love to hear a good argument for the benefit gained by kids engaging in sex not knowing how to use condoms.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
I mean, if you got issue with the law, then take it to the law makers. Don't take it out on the freaking teachers.
Why do they require this? Christian families (Such as my own) don't want our kids to learn this at school. It's my personal belief that kids should be taught this at home. However, I'm not saying that it should be banned. But why not make it voluntary? Parents should be able to choose whether or not sex-ed is right for their own kid. The state shouldn't tell us that our kids have to go through their particular sex-ed programs. I remember when my dad gave me "The talk". Most awkward ten minutes of my life, but there is no way I'd have wanted to learn that in school. If it was a voluntary program, I doubt there would be so much fuss over this.
promotes the sexualization — and sexual assault — of our children.
That pegged my bullshit detector. In fact I think it broke the peg clean off.
There's just too many that have a strong christian "free church" background, or at least such an electorate. The sort of people who can't really have it that evolution happens and that the world wasn't created in one day, much in the way they can't have it that humans, unlike every other mammal on earth, can have sex without marriage - and some more can't have it that sex is not done in fashion that results in offspring.
using the school system to shove his religious views down everyones throats.
He thinks learning about condoms cause people to rape more.
Fucking idiot.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
People do.
Hey says it "promotes the sexualization -- and sexual assault -- of our children."
Okay okay I can barely understand the first part. By teaching kids about sex and contraception, you are in a way acknowledging that they are or will be sexual beings, and I guess going from stubbornly and blindly refusing to acknowledge kids' sexuality to acknowledging the possibility could be called "promoting"... In a society as hung up about sex as ours, I can see how that reasoning comes about.
But promotes sexual assault? What. The. Fuck? How does that work? Is there a section in the class about how to be a rape victim? A video about how cool PTSD and group counseling are? Or is it that would-be predators will see the worldly look in the newly-educated kid's eyes and think "Ah, that one's fair game, he's practically asking for it!"
Fuck, nevermind. I don't even want to know what went on inside their head in the course of making the connection between sex ed and sexual assault.
Oh wait, I forgot, what went on was nothing. "Think of the children" means "For heaven's sake, don't think!"
The enemies of Democracy are
At last, 10 years of Paedophile and Child Pornography hysteria are beginning to pay off dividends. It begins with Sex Education classes, which by now are probably liability time bombs for all adults involved. It won't end there though. This has been the Endgame all along; a return to the social mores of the 1950s or earlier.
Child porn hysteria is toppling the fucking Catholic Church! What hope does your feeble "Free Society" have?
May the Maths Be with you!
The atheists and devil-worshippers are trying to convince us that giving kids knowledge about sex will prevent things like STDs, AIDS, and pregnancies, but that is simply not true.
The Bible, the most authoritative source on the subject, clearly points out that knowledge is the root of all evil. For example, in the Book of Genesis, Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden for eating from the Tree of Knowledge. A True Believer of the Lord can only interpret that in one way: Knowledge is Evil, and it is our duty to make sure our children are as poorly educated as possible.
Not just in regards to sex, but in other subjects, too. I have never allowed either of my children to attend school, and I forbid them to read anything except the Bible. I taught them enough english to understand it, and very little else. We do not have a television in our house, nor do we have a computer. For those wondering, I am typing this up at an internet cafe. I do this for their safety, as it is my duty to protect them from the dangers of the world. I despise my parents for making me go to college, and as a parent, I feel it is my responsibility to do things the Right Way. The Only Way.
The Way God Wants Me To Do Things.
Teaching kids safe sex is crucial but all this person sees is "sexualization"? It doesn't make me question sex-ed, it makes me question what's in the mind of this D.A.
most likely the "sexual assault" would be forcing children, or whose parents, who don't want to learn to learn this material. I'm no lawyer but I know that 'talking' someone into sex who is not expected to know the implications of their actions is also illegal so taking advantage of children who don't fully understand the meaning of the class and might object to learning the material if they were more developed could also be construed as assault or violation. Next time remember that things that appear insane to you are most likely logical to someone with either more knowledge or a different value set than you.
every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
To not show how to have safe sex is pretty much to rely on either teaching the kids nothing and let them learn the hard way, or teach abstinence in the schools. Problem is, abstinence doesn't work. This has been shown many times.
And to not show any safe sex information is worse, as shown in in China where they don't teach much about safe sex and this leads to many unwanted pregnancies. Teens are bombarded with images and messages of sex every day, even in places like the supermarket where the latest issues of magazines like Cosmo, scream sex on their covers for all to see. Then you have ads from companies like American Apparel. These images just play on teenage hormones so teens need to learn this since it's thrown at them so much and so often. And we can already see what happens if we don't.
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
Condoms/contraceptives are to sex as seat belts are to driving: useful tools that can prevent unplanned, life-altering events.
Some people might argue that teaching teens how to use seatbelts somehow makes them more likely to drive recklessly. Or that teaching about seat belts will increase their feelings of invincibility and trivialize the risks related to driving. I would say that teens that are aware of the reason for seatbelts will be more sober about the realities behind them. Those responsible enough to buckle up are those more likely to drive safely instead of recklessly.
DA Southworth wants to criminilize knowledge of sexual protection for teens at the same age we allow them to begin driving. We can't pretend that ignoring the teen desire to drive cars is going to reduce it. Teens naturally want freedom, want to drive, and they will even if we ignore proper training. If anything, it should be criminal NOT to teach teens critical skills that can prevent derailing lives- and these skills include driver safety and safe sex both.
News flash: adolescents are not children. They're adolescents, which means they're approaching sexual maturity. They deserve to know what it's all about.
And since when is it illegal to promote knowledge about anything??
The Associated Press Story is a bit more informative than the USA Today blog entry in TFA.
This is the part that boggles me...
The arbitrary line between "minors" and "adults" having sex is strange enough. Any law forbidding consenting adults is completely ridiculous. Saying that two "minors" can't go at it truly boggles because who's going to know, who's going to care, and what punishment could be worse than NOT fulfilling the biological urge with someone else who has that urge? ... I figure that is how many teens are looking at it, anyhow.
I wonder if the law also intends that minors can not legally have solo-sex? Craziness...
"Forcing our schools to instruct children on how to utilize contraceptives encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender," he wrote. "It is akin to teaching children about alcohol use, then instructing them on how to make mixed alcoholic drinks."
No, it's akin to teaching children about alcohol use, then teaching them how to say no to the second bottle of beer. They're not teaching people sex positions here, they're providing (or at least trying to provide) basic safety advice.
The basic idea here is that if you don't let kids know about condoms and how to use them, they'll be less likely to have sex. Presumably because 1) it's less likely to occur to them that having sex is possible, and 2) knowing how to use condoms makes them think having sex carries no risk.
It's dumb as shit, of course, as reasoning goes, and not borne out by studies of abstinence-only sex ed. vs non-fundie sex ed.
One district that received the letter said it had not taught sex ed for years.
So glad the kids are being taught about their own sexuality, rather than being inundated with guilt and mystery and likely engaging in risky behavior.
"I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
http://www.google.com/search?q=abstinence+rise+teen+pregnancy
This guy is an idiot.
If you had "enough work to do", you wouldn't have written this letter. Hopefully after the next election that won't be a problem for you...
Do you have ESP?
I remember getting excused from sexual education in high school. It was abstinence education, with no practical skills taught. Basically they showed us a bunch of nasty pictures and told us to not fuck, suck, or kiss. I spent hours surfing the web while my taxes went towards hours of wasted time. It was funny how confused they were about my "religion" that forbids me from learning sexual education that is solely abstinence. Luckily, I basically told them to fuck off and quit prying and they did.
'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
When he gets one in hoop he'll wish they were wearing a condom
Apparently, casting calls came up shorthanded for MTVs "16 and Pregnant" show. Looks like they won't have a shortage now.
What in the fuck has this world come to when someone can actually classify teaching how to use a condom as "sexual assault"?
Apparently that same someone hasn't ever had a typo entering a URL either.
Is there any way we can contact this nutcase and tell him how absolutely batsh*t insane he is?
But is not the point of Sex ed to teach children about save sex.
and contraceptives are a main part of that.
This seems like he just does not like the idea of Sex Ed in general, and this new curriculum has possibly just given him an excuse.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
How about a sex ed class where you can't do any laughing? or you get sent to hope high school.
Isn't it impossible to have contradictory laws - at least within a single legal system? The way it works in the UK at least is that any new law automatically supercedes older ones. So if there is a contradiction you follow the most recent law because it is deemed that MPs have changed their minds about the previous law. Does this DA really believe that any judge would find a teacher guilty if he took it to court? It strikes me as if he is trying to change the law rather than enforce it which is not part of his job description.
Your children are having a lot more sex than you think. The only way you can discourage them is to teach them programming.
I didn't want to learn about healthy eating, but they made me learn anyway! I was assaulted by those dastardly teachers! No not the broccoli!
How is it any different?
"I'm not looking to charge any teachers, I've got enough work to do."
Bullshit. That's exactly what he just threatened to do by sending those letters.
Teachers are in a very tough position, especially now that they are being threatened with arrest if they do what the law requires of them. This guy has a political agenda that is in opposition to the law. He is intimidating teachers into violating the law because of it. He is corrupt and doesn't deserve to be a district attorney.
Some quotes from his letter (via TFA)
"If a teacher instructs any student aged 16 or younger how to utilize contraceptives under circumstances where the teacher knows the child is engaging in sexual activity with another child -- or even where the 'natural and probable consequences' of the teacher's instruction is to cause that child to engage in sexual intercourse with a child -- that teacher can be charged under this statute" of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. ...
"Forcing our schools to instruct children on how to utilize contraceptives encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender," he wrote. "It is akin to teaching children about alcohol use, then instructing them on how to make mixed alcoholic drinks."
Note the second quote where he is clearly proselytizing against the law. This is completely inappropriate for a district attorney.
Teach kids basic safety, since by and large they aren't learning it at home.
Arm them with the knowledge to make good decisions even when they skip the part about making perfect decisions. The alternative ensures they'll do the stupidest thing possible in a given situation.
What parent with an IQ over 60 could possibly do otherwise?
Then by logical extension, forcing a student to learn material of a non-sexual nature that they don't want to learn would be assault?
Oh, I almost forgot... they definitely need to learn how to felch safely.
HIDE THE FUCKING CHILDREN I MEAN FUCKING SHIT PEOPLE FAST
(filterfilterfilterfilterfilterfilterfilterfilterfilter filterfilterfilterfilterfilterfilterfilterfilterfilter filterfilterfilterfilterfilterfilterfilterfilterfilter filterfilterfilterfilterfilterfilterfilterfilterfilter filterfilterfilterfilterfilterfilterfilterfilterfilter)
that she is a 'Nerd In training'.
I have never been happier.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The DA wont go after the teachers unless a parent complains. Yeppers you just watch, some parent will come along swearing their child has been scared, thus the DA is brought into the crap. ... Just send a note home with the kids asking parents for permission to teach their children sex education. Be sure the parents know exactly what their children will be taught too.
"encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender"
Because of course while engaging in any sort of sexual behavior, you must surely be either a victim or an offender.
Of course it is much better to promote "just say no" and pretend that normal human sexual desire does not exist, and certainly not in any one not of legal age.
I think that the real source of the problem here is someone who likely has a completely screwed up attitude towards any sort of sexual behavior.
And for any comments about "statutory rape", I don't think that applies (at least it shouldn't) in the case of two minors.
this has absolutely NOTHING to do with technology, why is it on /. ?????
But promotes sexual assault? What. The. Fuck? How does that work? Is there a section in the class about how to be a rape victim? A video about how cool PTSD and group counseling are? Or is it that would-be predators will see the worldly look in the newly-educated kid's eyes and think "Ah, that one's fair game, he's practically asking for it!"
Anyone having sex before the age of 12 is a victim of "Sexual assault of a child", even if that person is under the age of 12 themselves.
Wisconsin consent laws are apparently that fucked up.
Thus, if you're 11 and you willingly choose to have completely nonviolent, consensual, loving sex with another person, you're a victim of sexual assault.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Next time remember that things that appear insane to you are most likely logical to someone with either more knowledge or a different value set than you.
Haha, and here I thought you were giving an example of the kind of insanely retarded reasoning that could have led to the insanely retarded statement I quoted...
But you're seriously suggesting that sex ed itself could constitute sexual assault... and that this is indicative of "more knowledge"?!
Ha ha ha ha ha! Oh man, that's rich!
There is no set of values where "sex ed promotes the sexual assault of our children" makes a lick of sense. If you think it's immoral to be made to take a class you don't want to, that still doesn't make that class into sexual assault! That has nothing to do with values, that's simply bad reasoning.
The enemies of Democracy are
Remember: These are the best legislators we could get. Just imagine the ones that didn't make the cut.
I can pretty easily imagine that some of those who didn't make the primary or general electoral cut might well have been better than most of those we get.
These are probably the best we can get... not because there aren't better ones out there, but because of the way we talk and think about "hiring."
Tweet, tweet.
won't rape if they don't know how to use a condom.
FUD Fear Uncertainty Doubt. Thats all he is spreading, and it will make a percentage of the people hesitate and an an even smaller percentage not teach this information because they don't want to potentially put themselves in legal difficulty, whether that legal difficulty is real or imagined, sometimes its easier to err on not crossing that imagined line just in case. We've seen it in the IT world a lot, why, because its worked in the real world a whole lot longer.
Saying that disseminating information on sex is the same as encouraging people to HAVE sex could be likened to saying disseminating information on drugs is encouraging people to use drugs. This can be applied to many different fields, such as 'Don't Drink and Drive' commercials on TV, Trojan Condom commercials on TV, Planned Parenthood for providing free contraceptives regardless of age or situation, the Needle Exchange program which tries to prevent spreading HIV, AIDS, and Hepatitis by replacing dirty, used needles with clean ones, the AIDS network which regularly provides information and contraceptives to anyone for the asking....the list is LONG, especially in a liberal state like Wisconsin.
I'm not a lawyer, but I have faith (at least in Wisconsin) that the law will not be permitted to be twisted this way. I'm sure any half-assed newbie lawyer could look for a while and find some precedent that prevents the prosecution of an instructor for dissemination of information which certain people do not agree with. The fact remains, that as a student in Wisconsin (pre-, primary, middle, and high school) I was told countless times how condoms work, to use condoms if I had sex, how the body reproduces, how sex works, how drugs work, not to use drugs...hell, a DARE officer even brought in a CASE FULL OF DRUGS to my 5th grade class to show us what everything looks like. How is that not worse than showing a kid a condom?
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Dude WTF is going on with Slashdot. The story submission is totally borken. It just says "Please Enter A Reasonable Subject" and "You've Provided an incorrectly formated url..." when there is no problem. It won't let you submit a story!
So, according to some, teachers aren't supposed to be allowed to teach sex education with an approved, professionally developed curriculum? Well, ok. With today's level of internet tech, teens can just turn to YouTube.
Kicesie- "Virginity Part 2" 9:24
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x09G3xEgifs
The video is just Kicesie laying there in her flannel pajamas talking to the camera on her thoughts on virginity, having sex, some of the considerations on when might be a good time. It's the internet, and as Dan Savage sometimes says, the only qualification on giving advice is to give "a suggestion about what could or should be done" and have people who are willing to seek you out for advice. She doesn't claim to be a teacher or a doctor or anything. She's more like a big sister just talking about what's on her mind.
But the above video has about 1.8 million page views at the time of this post. What does this say? I think it says that we have some starvation-level hunger for sexual knowledge that isn't being met anywhere else, and this includes schools, which are SUPPOSED to be the sources of critical life knowledge for children and teens.
We could make sex ed entirely illegal. That will leave a gap of needed knowledge that teens will crave to fill. Youtube and other sites like it will be one way to try and fill the gap, although they aren't held to nearly the same academic standards that our public school systems are. Do we really want to outsource responsibility for critical life skills like understanding sex and contraception to Youtube? Making sex ed illegal or focusing on abstinence-only education will do exactly that. Either our teachers will teach teens about sex or Kicesie and her successors will. And either of those are preferable to NOBODY doing it and them just stumbling through unprepared.
Kids are going to have sex. That's the long and short of it.
If the stats are true, not all of them are. Some of them because they're not prepared, some of them because they read Slashdot. :)
I agree with the rest of your statement: it's far more responsible to tell kids about how everything works, what risks exist, how to mitigate them, and for the parents, what their values are and why. You can't get someone to ignore sex by trying to lock down information. Biology won't work that way, and those that choose to be sexually active will be better served and protected by having the information.
But I also don't think it's right to promote the idea of inevitability. Not everybody is going to have sex by the time they're 18, nor should they.
I think the bigger problem is that the balance between providing the necessary nuts-and-bolts education and avoiding the promotion of a culture of promiscuity is too subtle for a lot of people. If I were writing the rules, public education would include the biology of sex and conception as well as hygiene, but with a light warning, something along the lines of "We've taught you the mechanics, health risks, how to manage that, but we can't teach you how to manage the emotional and psychological issues that some people find go along with sex. Some people believe there are spiritual issues as well. Rather than 'just do it,' we encourage you to take a reflective approach, talk to people you trust, who you *know* care about you, who can help you navigate the ethical, personal, and social issues that come along with all this."
Of course, some people would find this to be scaremongering or indoctrination, and some people would worry it's not enough.
Tweet, tweet.
Ban all sex ed!
Because if you keep your kids completely ignorant of sex they will never do it!!!!
Great!!!
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
with these incredibly retarded ideas about sex?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This whole thing makes absolutely no sense to me as to why he's just now making these claims. I graduated from a district in Dane County WI last June, and the entire district was succumbed to sex education and information about contraceptives starting all the way back in 4th grade. Hell, in 8th grade we were shown a video of a child's birth and as far as I know, this curriculum hasn't changed. So they make this sort of education and now he says the teachers can get sued? Please.
Sexual assault doesn't have to be done by adults. Just recently in Arizona there was a Liberian girl raped by a group of young boys. IIRC the oldest boy was ~15. These kids won't choose to be victims, they may not even know if they do become victims.
Those weren't victims, those were rapists, and yes they sure as fuck knew what they were doing when they held the crying girl down and forced themselves on her.
These children are taught not to engage is sexual activity, but then they are told that sex is safe with a condom. So now little Jimmy may be convinced by his teacher/priest/coach that what they are doing is ok because he/she is going to use a condom.
That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard.
You're seriously suggesting that we will teach kids about reproduction, the sex act, contraceptives, STDs... but that they will have literally no idea what rape is?!
What kind of fucking retarded curriculum are you talking about that's going to make a kid think that sex they don't want is "okay" if contraceptives are involved? How does that work? Is what you wrote literally what you think the extent of sex education is?
"Sex is safe and always okay if you use a condom"? That's idiotic. Sex ed is not like that.
I don't know about you, but for one I was taught about "bad touches" long before I was given sex education (which was pretty early) and for two, in my sex-ed class I was told that condoms made you safer from STDs and pregnancy, not sexual assault!
You seriously think a kid who knows nothing about sex, STDs, or contraceptives is going to be less likely to be taken advantage of than one who does? Get a clue!
Or, young children will think it's ok to diddle around with each other because they found contraceptives, and we end up with another girl or boy raped, by children.
Again, how do we get from "practice safe sex, use a condom" to "Forcing people to do things they don't want to do is okay, if condoms are involved!"
leave it to parents to talk about contraceptives and abstinence. Which ever the child's parents prefer.
Yeah and many parents will "prefer" to teach nothing at all. And only the child of such parents could possibly be so naive and ignorant as to have any of the scenarios you suggest actually come to pass. Only the child of such parents could possibly have such a misbegotten notion of what formal sex education actually is to have these "concerns".
The enemies of Democracy are
Wisconsin consent laws are apparently that fucked up.
Wow. I've honestly never heard of a place so fucked up, and I didn't even need to go far from my home state to find it. That's depressing.
Thus, if you're 11 and you willingly choose to have completely nonviolent, consensual, loving sex with another person, you're a victim of sexual assault.
And apparently a perpetrator of sexual assault too, which is just highlights how retarded this is.
The enemies of Democracy are
Buy your kid World of Warcraft, get them playing it and they will be virgins for the foreseeable future. And they will have plenty of company to act as a support group, millions of other virgins.
Take the Red Pill.
...I would like to thank this tool for reaching a new low for stupidity in a public servant. Having conservative ignoramuses trying to mess with history by inserting fiction into text books is bad, but stupid about history is, I guess, is better than stupid about sex. Not that we don't have our share of "stupid about sex" in The Lone Star State, but at least that particular shortcoming isn't being actively encouraged by a public servant.
I would love to watch this fool try to prove that sex education promotes sexualization of a child much less sexual attacks or whatever. The greater puzzle is where we get people like this and how do they get a college degree and put in a public position. This fellow clearly needs remedial help and a job raking leaves in happy valley.
well first I was merely arguing an opposing viewpoint devil's advocate and all. second, to you it may be bad reasoning as well as to me as I don't believe that I go to hell for having sex. but for those afraid of eternal damnation anything that leads even in the smallest way to infinite punishment for finite reward is going to be bad and something they should clearly avoid. feel free to laugh at me for considering more than my side of an argument but it is also poor reasoning to think that you are inherently right and anyone arguing against you is wrong, the exact kind of narcissistic viewpoint that these religious crazies believe.
every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
I grew up in a very strict house. If I spent time with a girl, she was looked upon with a great suspicion. My parents watched her like a hawk, warned me about the dangers of sex, and discourage interaction with girls.
I never learned how to really relate to the opposite sex.
I grew up awkward and shy towards women - had very few dates and the few I had ended after one or two.
I eventually learned those skills - with the help of a therapist and tens of thousands of dollars.
Long story short, I finally met someone in my 40s and she was too old to have children - Cost a few thousand dollars in dating service fees, too.. I missed out on so much.
Don't stifle you daughter.
Another story. I know some other folks who were also very strict. Their daughter went to college and came home for the Summer pregnant.
Their other children are such social retards that basically, the bastard is their only grandchild.
Being overly strict is as bad as being too permissive - maybe worse.
Hey says it "promotes the sexualization -- and sexual assault -- of our children."
Okay okay I can barely understand the first part. By teaching kids about sex and contraception, you are in a way acknowledging that they are or will be sexual beings, and I guess going from stubbornly and blindly refusing to acknowledge kids' sexuality to acknowledging the possibility could be called "promoting"... In a society as hung up about sex as ours, I can see how that reasoning comes about.
But promotes sexual assault? What. The. Fuck? How does that work?
OK... I'm not sure I agree with the guy, but the knee-jerk reactions here are getting a bit ridiculous. Tell ya what -- if I provide a few reasonable assertions, and provide at least one case where his line of thought holds, will you promise not to let you dearly-held convictions get in the way of taking a statement and at least attempting to see if it holds?
Here goes: ... of our children". In other words, kids who are taught sex ed are more alive to the thought of having sex while in H.S.
1) You agree that there's the possibility that sex ed "promotes the sexualization
2) Kids who are taught how to use a condom think that they know how to use one -- and that they'll not only use one, but properly, in a sexual situation.
3) It's not unreasonable to think that, given a course in sex ed, kids will even more unreasonably conclude that "everyone's doing it, and so should i".
Alright. Here's where you try to give the benefit of the doubt:
1) You're a senior guy; hot freshman girl shows up on campus. Either you're 18 now, or you are in the spring or after graduation, and you try to tap that shit. She's been taught sex ed, so she thinks not only that it's incredibly cool that an older guy wants her, but that she's got it all covered, now that she knows how to use a condom. Statutory rape == assault.
2) You're a guy/girl with a crush on a teacher. You figure that, since you know how to have sex safely, you can seriously flirt with your teacher, since after all, no one will ever find out. Assault.
3) You're a guy who's become sexually active earlier (or become more sexually active) due to the sex ed you've received. You project your experience on your date, and assume she's gonna put out. She doesn't want to, but you don't see that coming. You force yourself on her. Date rape == Assault.
Not reasonable?
mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
well first I was merely arguing an opposing viewpoint devil's advocate
I'm very glad to hear that. There have been some very scary posts in this story.
but for those afraid of eternal damnation anything that leads even in the smallest way to infinite punishment for finite reward is going to be bad and something they should clearly avoid.
That's great but that still doesn't make the act of teaching sex ed a form of sexual assault. If their values say "this is a sin" then that's fine, it can't make the act into something it isn't. They can believe that sex before marriage will lead to eternal damnation, that doesn't and can't make sex into genocide.
it is also poor reasoning to think that you are inherently right and anyone arguing against you is wrong, the exact kind of narcissistic viewpoint that these religious crazies believe.
LOL. I don't think I'm always right or automatically right. I think I'm right in this case because the arguments for my side are rational, and all the arguments for the other side are some combination of batshit insane and utterly stupid.
Deciding that one side is right and the other side is wrong based on the weight of their respective merits is not narcissism. It's called having a fucking brain and using it.
This new philosophy that says both sides of any argument are equally valid and that you can never pick one side over the other for any reason other than just assuming you're right out of vanity is wrong and stupid.
In other news, homeopathy is horseshit, and the the two sides of that argument are the side of reason and evidence, and the side of idiots and fraudsters taking advantage of them.
The enemies of Democracy are
I believe that teenagers need to be reclassified into a separate group; most are incapable of bearing the responsibilities and having all of the rights of full adults, but they shouldn't be treated the same as month old babies or six year olds.
'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
First off, sorry for the long post
Second off, Seriously WTH??
I'm a teacher at a danish public school and what the DA is suggesting here is almost criminallly negligent in Denmark.
The pupils here HAVE to learn how to use contraceptives, it's the law. IMHO anything else is shooting yourself in the foot.
Not teaching them these things will not prevent the kids from having sex. I've never quite understood the whole American "If we don't talk/think about it then it doesn't exist!" attitude. To be fair though, it's not just the americans. Earlier this week I watched a documentary about British teenagers and their knowledge about sex and it was horrifying. Chicken skin as condoms, rinse out with cola, eat indian food the day after you've had sex. These were somewhat widely spread beliefs among teenagers on how not to get pregnant.(it's 4 in the morning atm and I can't remember what the documentary was called, but I'll find the link to the statistics later after I've slept)
Anyway, enough of my ramblings.
I'm glad to hear that Mrs. Helen don't see things the way the DA does. I can not for the life of me see how not teaching about contraceptives would be the better choice. Hindering the spread of STD's and minimising unwanted teen pregnancies would only seem like a good thing, no?
let's just for arguments sake do a little thought experiment.
Based on the belief(my belief at least) that teens will have sex no matter what we tell them i see a few different scenarios.
1: Teens have sex -> Teens don't use protection -> By sheer dumb luck nothing happens.
2: Teens have sex -> Teens don't use protection -> STD gets transmitted -> Numerous doctors appointments and various medication that in the best case kills the STD and in the worst case the girl will not be able to bear children later in her life.(drastic contrast I know, but entirely possible and it serves the example well)
3: Teens have sex -> Teens do use protection -> If used incorrectly there's a high probability that we'll end up as in example 2
4: Teens have sex -> Teens do use protection -> If used correctly the risk of STD's or unwanted pregnancy is reduced to a virtuel minimumm.
Feel free to correct these if you feel I've messed up, I AM going on my 28th hour awake.
So even the knowledge of contraceptives can be hurtful if it is not well founded.
Granted my students look at me like I've lost my mind when I bring bananas and condoms to class, and granted they're quite shy and embarresed at first, usually we'll just end up having a laugh about it though.
I even know a colleague of mine encouraged her pupils to learn how to put on the comdoms using only their mouths, both the girls AND the boys(Who knows, some of them may be gay and this might come in handy?) This is far from standard curriculum though and not something any school here would reccomend. But as teachers we do have a lot of leeway to use the techniques we see fit.
oh and as a last little side note here. We DO teach our pupils about alcohol, both in general and from personal experience uusually. They're gonna try it at parties anyway, so might as well prepare them as best we can. I'm not saying we bring alcohol to school, that's highly illegal, but we do talk about it in almost every aspect. The taste, smell, looks, effect(good and bad) etc. as do we when it comes to sex. The teachers have to make up with themselves if they want to include personal experience or not, but talking about how sex feels(both physically and psychologically) and what the goods and bads are about it, tends to have a lot more succes than just dry boring anatomy facts and standard info on STD's. Of course the anatomy, biology and the STD info is required teachings, but just listing facts is a dead sure way of not getting your pupils attention.
But promotes sexual assault? What. The. Fuck? How does that work?
I suspect the logic goes like this:
Depending on the local laws, it may be that minors cannot legally engage in any sexual activity. Having sex automatically becomes statutory rape. In light of this, promoting sex is equal to promoting statutory rape which is legally a form of sexual assault.
Of course it's a completely fucked up line of reasoning, but it wouldn't surprise me to see this DA try to connect those dots.
In the US, religionists hate sex that isn't rationed according to their superstition. Americans, by and large, are religious, willfully ignorant, and ruled by fear. Any pleasure not rationed by preacher or priest is evil.
What is a "religionist?" If you can't communicate your intent with common, neutral language and feel the need to coin special jargon to dehumanize your opponents (e.g. by lumping them all together in a sinister "-ism"), then that's generally a bad sign on whether you're coming from a point of view that's not particularly based on reason or open-mindedness.
Or to rephrase, you don't sound any better than the people you're decrying. Substitute "ignorant" for "evil," and you sound like any other fundamentalist.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Disclaimer: I am a Christian. //sick of my fellow Christians refusing to talk about sex at home ///really sick of my fellow Christians expecting others to teach their children everything, then getting angry when the child may learn an opposing viewpoint. ////thinks parents should teach their children what they (parents) believe & why, then be open to discussing opposing views. Let the child decide. Encouragement to one side is ok. Forced faith is not faith, just a form of control. /////needs to get off of his slashy soapbox...
If you don't like what the teachers at school are telling your children, then it is YOUR responsibility as a parent to discuss what you think is wrong & why. I am all for sex ed in schools, including the proper use of contraceptives. I also think that such discussions should have already started at home prior to this. IF parents don't want to discuss this at home, they have NO right to bitch about what is taught in schools.
Southworth is a dickwad who craves attention.
He also sued the University of Wisconsin for allowing "segregated fees" to pay for student group activities like the LGBT group. Case went to the Supreme Court. The University won.
Then he was a media darling for adopting some Iraqi boy.
As a member of the BDSM community, I have to say that hearing stuff like this just blows my mind.
Talking to people who begin experiencing their sexuality in a "deviant" way early on, it's obvious that not educating people why it's perfectly ok to have all sorts of urges causes all sots of harm in this country. People go for years, sometimes their whole lives, feeling guilt-ridden and terrified that they, for instance, are turned on by spanking someone (oh noz!)
Wonderful relationships and families are ruined because people feel the need to keep basic as well as more advanced sexuality in the closet. People should be educated about their sexuality not only for their own health but for the health of their future relationships and the community too!
If we're not teaching kids the basics, we're doing them a terrible disservice.
That and I never learned to put condom on until college, thank god I shaped up and learned to have some fun in bed. It's what makes putting up with adulthood more bearable!
I'd imagine the "sexual assault" part might come from the fact that, since teens can't legally consent to sex, any sex they have is technically statutory rape. This also leads to the peculiar, and might I say insane, state where a person can be both an offender and victim of a sexual crime in a single action.
Bill#1: What's the name of dat der dam County? Bill#2: Juneau Bill#1: No- really, I don't.
This is the first verified example of someone traveling through a time warp Space-Time Warp Verified In Wisconsin
Scott Southworth is living proof that mini-wormholes exists, that they permit time travel, and that, as scientists suspected, you cannot bring information forward in time.
From watching the news it seems some teachers take teaching sex to their students too far. Maybe parents don't want the creepy gym teacher having sex talk with their Kids.
We need to step up the war on religion if we're going to prevent all that crap. In the US, the other religions are such a small voting block that the don't make much difference, but if we could just stamp out Christianity once and for all, we'd have a new age of reason in the US, which would solve several of those problems.
A culture of self-delusion leads to a people who are easily deluded.
I know you hate what's happening these days, or you wouldn't be able to cough up such a list of lamentations so facilely, and I'm sure you know that if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem, so make a good start tomorrow morning by trying to get through the day without depending on the presence of an all-seeing invisible friend.
You won't feel better, but after a while, you'll know better.
The parent indeed said he could barely understand that, but I do not agree. I have no reason to believe it is true.
Teenagers are a raging cauldron of hormones. To think that they're sitting around going "eh, nah, I won't have sex until I'm older" seems pretty naive to me to begin with (as evidenced by the problems we have with teenage sexual activity to begin with). To take that further and assume that after they say that, that they go "oh wait, I CAN have sex!" because of a sex ed class is nothing more than pushing an agenda. Believe whatever you want for whatever reasons you choose, but that doesn't mean it is reasonable to do so.
I was reading a CNN article the other day (I forget the actual subject so I can't look it up) where it talked about several different studies that concluded one important thing: Sexual education classes do not lead to increased rates of teenage sex, it leads to increased rates of safe teenage sex. Likewise, that same article mentioned another study that religious teenagers who took so-called abstinence pledges (some so far as to sign a "contract") did not have less sex either. Once again, they simply had less safe sex. And these are exactly the types of teens you're most likely to reach: Ones who have religious objections to pre-marital sex, ones who have already decided for some reason that it is inappropriate and gone so far as to pledge they will not do it. And yet they do, at the same rate as the horny teenagers who would laugh in your face if you suggested such a thing. Sure, some of them probably did it because they were pressured to, but the statistics hold. Kids have sex if they can, news at 11.
As far as not really knowing how to use a condom, well, okay. But for one thing, it doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist to figure it out. And second, trying and doing it wrong (how?!) is still going to be better than not trying at all. It's still a net positive.
Yes, it is unreasonable. You said so in your second sentence when you suggested they will "unreasonably" conclude that they need to have sex despite not wanting to.
Kids have sex because their bodies tell them to; because when they get close their body reacts with some of the most overwhelmingly positive reinforcement that exists in the world. It floods the bloodstream with hormones that make you feel good, it floods the bloodstream with hormones that tell you that this is exactly what you should be doing -- and as much as you possibly can. And when they finally go all the way, hell, that feels pretty damn good too, and you're flooded with even more hormones.
They're having sex because they want to. Nobody is talking kids into it (except maybe their partner, and it will almost always be the female resisting--yet again because her body tells her to be more selective). Nobody has to.
#1 is reasonable because it's one of those silly situations where both parties involved in a sexual encounter can want it and yet it can still be considered legally a sexual assault. This is almost certainly what he meant.
#2 is possible but less reasonable. It still relies on a teacher whose body isn't coursing with the same level of hormones as the teen, who throw away their discretion, their career and potentially their freedom to act on it. It happens, but
Isn't it a crime to use the power and authority of your office to threaten people with prosecution in an attempt to force them to adhere to your insane religious beliefs?
If it's not a crime, can we just send him a letter TELLING him that it is? That's what he did.
Hey, you're way more likely to die as a young person if you drive. Automobile accidents are far in a way our biggest killer in this country for 15-22 year olds. Driver's Ed teachers are culpable for those deaths. If we just jailed everyone who helped a kid get a learners permit (teachers, parents, DMV personnel) lots of kids would make it into their later 20s who would otherwise be dead.
Why do they require this? Christian families (Such as my own) don't want our kids to learn this at school. It's my personal belief that kids should be taught this at home.
Does that mean that you actually intend to teach your kids about safe sex, or is it your intent to prevent them from learning in the first place in the hopes that this will somehow discourage them from partaking in sex despite peer pressure and possible misinformation from peers at an age when they are starting to become independent and place less weight on your words than that of those peers?
It's important for parents to have the right to pass their values on, but don't place too much reliance on your ability to get your kids to do what you want. After all, that's why kids taking "virginity pledges" are more likely to engage in oral & anal sex, are more likely to forgo protection, and end up with rates of pregnancy and STD infection on par with kids taught about safe sex.
So, please don't be naive with your kids, and please don't take the hardened stance that if they don't obey your wishes about when to start having sex, that they deserve any "consequences" such as an STD or an unwanted pregnancy.
Parents should be able to choose whether or not sex-ed is right for their own kid.
If they're actually involved enough to care. But why should the kids of parents who are negligent (or who just find the whole subject immensely awkward) have to suffer for having sucky parents? What about parents who actively lie about sex to try to scare their kids into not having it?
Do you want your kids possibly going out with other kids that have really poor education about sex? (Or do you plan to try to lock up your kids so they don't date? Maybe you plan to have "the talk" with their girlfriend/boyfriend?)
Teen pregnancy and STDs are a societal problem, and part of the major role of schools in society is to pick up after crappy parents. Maybe you're awesome. Maybe your kids are great. But do you seriously think we should just give everyone the benefit of the doubt and try to pick up the pieces later? Or is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? I'm quite obviously in favor of the latter view.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Rather than going through the correct legislative channels to attempt to get the new law repealed, he's threatening school districts with charges if they follow the law. It seems this would likely get him disbarred by the state, wouldn't it?
They only want more babies so they have more soldiers to get killed in some foreign land.
specifically, a mechanical engineer, an electrical engineer, and a civil engineer are arguing about what kind of engineer god is
the mechanical engineer begins: "god is clearly a mechanical engineer, from the valves in the heart to the interplay of bone and muscle, god is a sublime genius of mechanical engineering"
the electrical engineer retorts: "no, god is clearly an electrical engineer. that the mind's wiring can interplay so deftly between sight and sound and touch and reaction exalts electrical engineering into an art form"
finally, the civil engineer speaks up: "sorry guys, but god is clearly a civil engineer: who else but a civil engineer would run waste pipes through a recreation area?"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1) You agree that there's the possibility that sex ed "promotes the sexualization ... of our children". In other words, kids who are taught sex ed are more alive to the thought of having sex while in H.S.
That's like arguing that taking a class in culinary arts leads to over eating. Not to mention, you're are apparently asserting that masturbation and such don't exist before education classes. I don't think sex ed classes have an effect on the rate of masturbation, and so they will be "sexual beings" whether or not you teach them about it.
2) Kids who are taught how to use a condom think that they know how to use one -- and that they'll not only use one, but properly, in a sexual situation.
So people who will be having sex will be more likely to use condoms. I thought that was the point. Or are you saying that the training is useless because "in the heat of the moment" they won't do it anyway?
3) It's not unreasonable to think that, given a course in sex ed, kids will even more unreasonably conclude that "everyone's doing it, and so should i".
I was explicitly told the percentages of sex, and the rates. When sex ed explicitly teaches that not everyone is doing it, I'm curious why you are asserting the opposite?
You're a senior guy; hot freshman girl shows up on campus. Either you're 18 now, or you are in the spring or after graduation, and you try to tap that shit. She's been taught sex ed, so she thinks not only that it's incredibly cool that an older guy wants her, but that she's got it all covered, now that she knows how to use a condom. Statutory rape == assault.
Huh? Are you saying that she's assaulted because she knows how to use a condom? Or that the statutory rape rules are stupid? Or that the senior should know better?
You're a guy/girl with a crush on a teacher. You figure that, since you know how to have sex safely, you can seriously flirt with your teacher, since after all, no one will ever find out. Assault.
So, it's not the fault of the teacher for having sex with students, but the fault of sex ed by revealing the existence of condoms. We'll have a mass of teachers raping under age children if those children hear about condoms, so making condoms illegal will save the children, right? Again, I think your logic is odd, and the logical conclusions of your logic seem to fail miserably.
You're a guy who's become sexually active earlier (or become more sexually active) due to the sex ed you've received. You project your experience on your date, and assume she's gonna put out. She doesn't want to, but you don't see that coming. You force yourself on her. Date rape == Assault.
That's someone that doesn't understand rape. People don't rape their dates just because they don't put out. They rape because they are rapists. Condoms don't turn people into rapists. If that's believed, then condoms should be made illegal, as that will cure rape amongst adults as well. If it doesn't apply to adults, why do you assert it would apply to young post-pubescents?
Not reasonable?
That's the first thing I've agreed with: Not reasonable.
Learn to love Alaska
Lol okay, that title was a little much but seriously, all I read was "they're moron, go liberals, wooo!" Pull your head out of your ass and stop reading from the black and white, conservative vs liberal playbook and think of this issue in reality. I'm an independent, can you tell? I use logical to solve disputes and political or governmental problems. So in this case, what do we get if we don't teach them how to use contraceptives? They learn learn it elsewhere (or already know cuz it's pretty common knowledge) from friends or the internet and is on the packages for any of these products not to mention their websites or forums or basically anywhere else. If someone wants to know, they can look it up online or ask someone if they're not too shy and then the information is available to them AS NEEDED and WHEN NEEDED FOR THEM PERSONALLY. That seems perfectly logical and reasonable but does in fact leave some random kids without important knowledge if they're somehow unable to acquire it when they need it.
Here's what we get when you do teach them this information about contraceptives. They know about it for future reference like perhaps if they were married, which most conservatives will agree with minus the catholics, but only if they remember for that long into the future. They'd probably have to re-look up the info anyway. I'm 22 and I hardly remember some of the more advanced details about the stranger contraceptives. But still, then everyone knows and if something's important, they remember it better and longer. What everyone doesn't seem to understand is that high school-taught knowledge is for future use and sex ed is no different. The curriculum does not include telling kids to go have sex right now. It's just information that is being stated in a nuetral way...IN THEORY! There are two slightly different but at the same time extremely different ways of teaching it and phrasing the material. One is it is stated as information and facts only with no bias or suggestions or opinions. Then there's young kids, perhaps even 13 or 14, who have decided they aren't ready to or don't want to have sex yet and now they have to sit through someone telling them exactly how to put a condom on themself as if it's implied they need to know it now because they're supposed to be doing something with the knowledge. These (approx 50%+ of) kids obviously have their hormones telling them one thing and their brains telling them no sex yet and then here comes this info making them feel like they're doing something wrong in waiting or having no need for that information yet. That's why I lean slightly towards putting massive restrictions on how this information can be taught but still teaching it. This is NOT as black and white as you idiots on either side of it saying "YOU'RE EVIL! YOU SUCK! YOU'RE RUINING KIDS LIVES!" It's really quite complicated if you take 2 seconds to use your damn brain about it.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
So in this case, what do we get if we don't teach them how to use contraceptives? They learn learn it elsewhere (or already know cuz it's pretty common knowledge) from friends or the internet and is on the packages for any of these products not to mention their websites or forums or basically anywhere else.
No, you get a 15 year old girl who has THREE KIDS (by three different guys, no less). One of my close friends has a cousin who goes to school with her. Schools should not only be teaching the use of birth/STD control, they should give out condoms, too.
I don't give a shit what the conservative fucktards say about how that just encourages kids to fuck. Kids are going to fuck no matter what, so we should be enabling them to do it safely. If this asshole in Wisconsin thinks that he's somehow saving our children by keeping this "filth" out of the curriculum, I have two words for him: Bristol Palin.
Cheating spouses is viewed as not a big deal even though it causes so much harm to children.
It's harmful to children because it's stigmatized. How would children suffer from parents having a little fun on the side if everybody's ok with it?
Divorce is rampant. Children are regularly harmed by the constant break up of families.
Divorce per se isn't bad. That children are harmed is once again only because people start fighting and actively blocking one another. If people broke up their romantic involvement but kept raising the children together there'd be no problem.
Kids are branded as lame if they're still virgins at 12.
Ok, if everybody followed a religion disapproving of sex, it could fix that. So would universal non-religious disapproval, without all the other crap in the religion package deal.
Kids are growing up without any parents because the one they have has to work 3 jobs
How would religion fix them having to work 3 jobs?
or both decide they'd rather work than raise their kids.
You don't need religion to value emotional investment in children higher than financial. It's the overemphasis of financial wealth and the insecurity of the economy that makes people do that. Again, religion could fix the former, but so could a variety of other things people that don't require people to eat saviors on Sunday.
I think *he's* the one who needs investigating and/or educating.
No sig today...
Parents, take responsibility for your own kids.
Teaching kids about condoms in school is going to encourage sexual activity.
I'm glad I can afford to send my kids to private school so I don't have to deal with parents who lack the intellectual capacity to understand this.
I agree. According to this DA if you teach kids ANYTHING they will immediately and automagically misuse this information to the greatest extent possible.
According to his logic:
- Teach kids sex and they will do it.
- Teach kids Chemistry and they will cook Meth.
- Teach kids to read and write and they will become Communists and revolutionaries.
- Teach kids about electricity and they will create electric grenades.
- Teach kids about physics and they will build zip guns.
Yes, SOME kids will do this in spite of teaching them anything, but MOST kids, when given the truth, will chose otherwise.
It's because teenage sex is ILLEGAL in wisconsin. any teenager who has sex is technically committing a crime (and simultaneously being a victim) of sexual assault. so, by that logic, anything that "encourages" teenagers to have sex is "encouraging" them to be participants in illegal sex acts, and that's where the "promoting sexual assault" comes from.
Department District Attorney
Elected Official Scott Harold Southworth
Address Justice Center
200 Oak Street
Mauston, Wisconsin 53948
Phone Number 608-847-9314
Fax Number 608-847-9320
Email Southworth.Scott@da.wi.gov
Staff District Attorney Staff
Office Hours 8:00AM-Noon 12:30PM-4:30PM Monday through Friday
Committee Of Jurisdiction Executive Committee
Teaching kids to drink in moderation is prevalent in France, where kids are allowed to drink wine with the family at dinner from a teenagehood. Coincidentally (sarcasm), binge drinking in France is FAR less prevalent than it is in the U.S. or U.K.
What I like is that in large parts of Europe, the age to drink alcohol is either non-existent, or somewhat lower than the age to purchase it. This encourages much safer practices in general. Take a look at the Wikipedia entry for legal drinking ages.
Somewhat of a tangent, but I also like that in most of Europe it's lower than the age for driving a motor vehicle. In countries where you can drive younger than you can drink, the incidence of driving while dangerously intoxicated seems to be much higher than in countries where you can drink younger than you can drive. I personally believe (although have no evidence to back this up) that people learn the effects of alcohol, then when they finally get behind the wheel of a car are already familiar enough with how alcohol affects them and make they well reasoned decision that being in that condition while in control of a vehicle would be a very bad thing indeed.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
I just have to say youre batshit crazy America. Why are you so afraid of sex, its a deep part of human nature, its not going away, it happens to wake up around 13-14 earlier/later depending on individual maturity. That doesnt mean teenagers have sex at that specific time, we all know that. But some will, many, will before they become 16 (age of consent in Denmark) - better they know how to protect themselves. No? Interestingly you can buy a pack of cigarette, a six pack of beer at the age of 16 here and then go out and fuck like a rabbit. But they just dont do it, what gives ? Why dont they censor swearing and titshots on TV here ? According to your legislators our society would be run by demented, raving alcoholic sexperverts raping everything with a pulse and not one of the safest places in the world. I know im generalizing here :), but its always weird to look across the pond (the UK is bad too), and see how much the people with a higher sense of moral right is dominating the news (that reaches us).
Goddammit America - You used to be this shining beacon in the world of leadership, democracy and sensibility. Now you're just descending into some kind of nutbar crazy JesusLand. Every week there's another story like this one.
What the hell happened? I want my old America back... Can't you level-headed Americans (there must be *some* of you left...) do something about it?
I'm not sure how seriously to take your post, but the Bible does teach, to some extent, that not all knowledge is desirable and that attempting to gain and sequester knowledge should not be the ultimate goal of life. This is a value that sometimes clashes with modern science-worshiping societies in which it's unthinkable that ignorance (or if you prefer, religious words for the same thing like "purity") could ever be a virtue. The Bible teaches that there are some things of which it is better to purposely remain ignorant (we all know that what has been seen cannot be unseen) and it is folly to attempt to seek satisfaction in gaining ultimate knowledge or to attempt to gain true understanding of the world, which is impossible for mortal man. From this perspective, it is not outrageous that some people think they (and others) should remain ignorant of certain aspects of sexuality...we all have our limits as to what we do not desire to see, or wish we could unsee. The line is just drawn in different places and a tolerant, open minded person would not look down on someone whose line falls differently than his.
The Grief of Wisdom
I, the Preacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 And I set my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all that is done under heaven; this burdensome task God has given to the sons of man, by which they may be exercised. I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and indeed, all is vanity and grasping for the wind.
What is crooked cannot be made straight,
And what is lacking cannot be numbered.
I communed with my heart, saying, "Look, I have attained greatness, and have gained more wisdom than all who were before me in Jerusalem. My heart has understood great wisdom and knowledge." And I set my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is grasping for the wind.
For in much wisdom is much grief,
And he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.
Ecclesiastes 1
As light excels darkness.
14 The wise man’s eyes are in his head,
But the fool walks in darkness.
Yet I myself perceived
That the same event happens to them all.
15 So I said in my heart,
"As it happens to the fool,
It also happens to me,
And why was I then more wise?"
Then I said in my heart,
" This also is vanity"
16 For there is no more remembrance of the wise than of the fool forever,
Since all that now is will be forgotten in the days to come.
And how does a wise man die?
As the fool!
17 Therefore I hated life because the work that was done under the sun was distressing to me, for all is vanity and grasping for the wind.
Ecclesiastes 2
... people find it easier to believe there is no God than to change their behavior to match the morals taught by whichever god in whom they would otherwise believe.
But since none of these gods have deigned to provide these morals or the required behaviors, what's a believer to do? Inventing them seems to be the only option. It also appears to me that this is exactly what every religion does.
When a new law is written contradicting an old law, the old law is Repealed.
Memo to Wisconsin D.A.; go back to your law school and demand your money back, you've been robbed.
But since none of these gods have deigned to provide these morals or the required behaviors, what's a believer to do? Inventing them seems to be the only option. It also appears to me that this is exactly what every religion does.
Wait. Your complaint is that no god has given moral guidance to us, and then you turn around and state - as if it were proven fact - that every religion which claims god has given us moral guidance is just making it up?
You don't admit the possibility that even one of these religions may be correct?
You don't see the problem with that argument? It's merely "I don't believe their claims", not "no gods have given us moral guidance" as you've claimed.
It's fine to say you don't believe any religion's claims - I won't argue with you - but don't pretend your opinion is fact.
I have a theory that educators have a lot of exposure, because it is literally impossible for follow all the voluminous and conflicting Federal, State, and Local laws that proscribe their conduct. This certainly counts as further evidence in support of that theory.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I'm fully in favour of this. The more that paranoia and idiocy win, the sooner we'll see a revolution.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not a fan of revolution. However, it seems inevitable that the US is going to run into one before long.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
An American fifteen-year-old, raised on modern nutrition all her life and given proper prenatal care, is in a better position than ~95% of the women of the world (and more like 99.9999% of the women of history) to have a healthy baby without harm to herself. She's also in a far better position to do so than she will be in thirty years, when she has about thirty times the odds of producing a Down's syndrome baby.
The main objection most people really have is that they don't want teens getting laid. To that I say: get over yourselves!
But since none of these gods have deigned to provide these morals or the required behaviors, what's a believer to do? Inventing them seems to be the only option. It also appears to me that this is exactly what every religion does.
Wait. Your complaint is that no god has given moral guidance to us, and then you turn around and state - as if it were proven fact - that every religion which claims god has given us moral guidance is just making it up?
You don't admit the possibility that even one of these religions may be correct?
You don't see the problem with that argument? It's merely "I don't believe their claims", not "no gods have given us moral guidance" as you've claimed.
Are you saying that some god somewhere has provided moral guidance? If you are then which one? How do you know? Why do you pretend that these guidelines are the correct one?
I'm basing my argument that religions make up the guidances on the knowledge that gods have not provided guidances. Call me cynical but if 1000 religions all claim different rules, then at least 999 are making them up. My odds are pretty good that the remaining religion is making it up as well since there's no bound to the number of religions. And this assumes that there is a god to begin with.
It's fine to say you don't believe any religion's claims - I won't argue with you - but don't pretend your opinion is fact.
Not being able to pretend that god doesn't exist would also stop one from claiming that there's no Easter Bunny. If you claim that there's no Easter Bunny, then consider my claim maintained.
No one ever taught me about condoms or any other form of contraception. Didn't stop me from becoming a rapist. Funny, hm?
on the knowledge that gods have not provided guidances.
... and that's where your argument falls apart. That is not fact; you call it knowledge, but it's merely opinion.
See, you have no evidence that your opinion is correct, so you cannot call it "knowledge".
Call me cynical but if 1000 religions all claim different rules, then at least 999 are making them up.
That's not cynical, it's logical. I think religions which claim "all religions are true" are silly at best.
My odds are pretty good that the remaining religion is making it up as well since there's no bound to the number of religions. And this assumes that there is a god to begin with.
There's no real bound to the number of theories regarding how the universe came to be, either, and most of them are mutually exclusive. That doesn't mean all of them are false.
In other words, "only one can be true" does not imply "they must all be false". To claim it does is absurd.
I'm not going to try to convince you that your opinion is wrong, nor that mine is right. We're each free to believe as we wish. I'm merely trying to get you to understand that you cannot claim your opinion is fact.
on the knowledge that gods have not provided guidances.
... and that's where your argument falls apart. That is not fact; you call it knowledge, but it's merely opinion.
See, you have no evidence that your opinion is correct, so you cannot call it "knowledge".
It is knowledge deduced from facts. In a sense, it's impossible to prove a negative but let's try an exercise. I claim that if you pick a random number from 0 to infinity, I can guess that number. Of course I won't actually give you that number. You have to believe that I know which number you picked. You can't "prove" that I'm a liar but we both know it for a "fact".
The difference between theories about the universe and the existence of a god is that the former are falsifiable. In the end it makes a big difference. Arguments that hold for falsifiable theories may not hold for non-falsifiable ones.
There are plenty of theories about God that are falsifiable - for example, religions which teach inconsistent doctrines are obviously false. Any true religion will be both self-consistent and consistent with known scientific fact. You're assuming that because you have not come across a religion meeting your satisfaction, none at all exist even among those with which you are not familiar.
The statement "God exists" is not, at present, empirically falsifiable. Somehow you're twisting that idea to mean that God must therefore not exist.
In other words, you're assuming "not falsifiable" is equivalent to "not true". Surely you can see the problem with that absurd leap of logic?
You're entitled to your opinion, as I've said, but it's silly of you to continue to pretend your opinion is absolute fact.
The statement "God exists" is not, at present, empirically falsifiable. Somehow you're twisting that idea to mean that God must therefore not exist.
In other words, you're assuming "not falsifiable" is equivalent to "not true". Surely you can see the problem with that absurd leap of logic?
I'm pretty sure I didn't say that non-falsifiable means not true; In fact, I am certain that there are several non-falsifiable statements that are true. What I said was that arguments that hold for falsifiable statements may not hold for non-falsifiable ones. In the case of the existence of gods, there are several issues other than the non-falsifiable part. For example, as I have stated, the number of theories is unlimited. Also, people that belong to a faith generally don't agree on just what the religion is; Is there an heaven? Hell?
it's silly of you to continue to pretend your opinion is absolute fact.
Using that argument, as I've said, it would also be silly to claim that there's no Easter Bunny.
Judicial estoppel