Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Alberta gov't to make evolution classes optional under proposed law.

1246

Posts

  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    It's time for another episode of Random Thoughts, by ElJeffe:

    - There is a bit of a fuzzy line here separating religion from non-religion. In the mind of a YEC, for example, God creating the world in six literal days is an incontrovertible fact, just as people who aren't wrong assert that evolution is a fact. It's not just a matter of religion to them.

    - That said, they can learn to deal. When 99.999% of all experts in the field are saying A is true, we have to go on the assumption that A is true. Especially when the 0.001% is only saying A is false because they entered the field specifically to try to prove it so. That's not how science works. Or any sort of fact-based study, for that matter.

    - Creationists aren't required to agree with the curricula. If they believe in a 6-day Creation, they can teach their kids about that all damned night. But the school still gets to teach them the facts agreed upon by just about everyone not ignorant while those kids are on school grounds.

    - Sex-ed is a bit of a different beast. For starters, it has two backs.

    - That was bad and I apologize.

    - Seriously, there are defensible reasons to withdraw your child from sex-ed that have nothing to do with being a freaky prude-boy. There is a reason we don't just teach sex-ed and STD prevention in kindergarten; children need to reach a certain level of emotional maturity before they can deal with all that info in a responsible fashion. And not all children mature at the same rate. While most kids held back from sex-ed classes are likely just saddled with freaky prude parents, there may be some who are actually so withheld for good cause. Parents should have that right, given that they are the best judges of their children's temperments, even if many parents will be stupid about it.

    I think the issue with "many parents will be stupid about it" is the reason why we have sex-ed in the first place. We took a hard look at the issue and saw that people were having underage sex regardless of parental influence and teenage pregnancy/STD rates were skyrocketing. You want to teach your kid about sex yourself, fine, go right ahead. But it is in the public's best interest for that child to be knowledgeable about safe-sex. I think this is a clear case of public interest overriding the parent's. It's not like my sex-ed classes encouraged sex, which I think is what people's primary hang up is on. Here's a newsflash concerned parents: Your kid will want to have, and will think about sex all the time regardless of what you tell them. Having sex-ed will not encourage or discourage an individual from thinking about sex any more than they already do.

    DoctorArch on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Lizard wrote: »
    So I've done enough lurking to figure out the dynamics of this forum.

    One of you says conservatives are fucking stupid, then the rest of you start jerking each other off, repeat 20x the next day.

    Is that about right?

    Welcome to D&D.

    saint2e on
    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I mean, do you GET WHAT HAPPENS WITHOUT STANDARDIZED EDUCATION?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6076758.stm

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Part of the problem here is that the School Act already enshrined a parent's right to opt their kid out of certain classes or discussions. If there was a sex discussion they weren't informed of, they could complain to the principal, superintendent of the district, etc.

    But by moving this shit into the human rights act you open a big can of worms. Lots of things, like evolution, could potential offend someone's religious beliefs, and if they decide to raise a fuss they could haul the teacher in front of a human rights tribunal, which is a far more serious act than whining to the principal.

    Senjutsu on
    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Yes, I was clearly bashing on education. I want my children to grow up without an education. It's a little experiment of mine to see if I can reverse-engineer cavemen.

    joshofalltrades on
    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
  • evilintentevilintent Registered User
    edited May 2009
    Kagera wrote: »
    So it's the public school's job to teach our kids about sex? If I prefer to do that myself without some stranger teaching them God-knows-what I'm wrong?

    So it's the public school's job to teach our kids about the Civil Rights Movement?

    If I prefer to do that myself without some stranger teaching them God-knows-what I'm wrong?

    One of these two concepts involve personal lifestyle choices and the other is factual, historical information. Do you know the difference?

    So sexuality is a choice, now?

    Yes? You can choose to not have sex later in life, in which case you may be horribly scarred by that Miracle of Life video for nothing, and maybe a wacko teacher showing you how to put a condom on a banana; or cucumber; or dildo. Shit is scary.

    Edit: josho, you can. We have plenty in Romania. I swear, every time I hear some retard honking his horn for absolutely no reason, I imagine him gleefully clapping his hands quickly and laughing like someone with a developmental disability, then honking the horn, then laughing and clapping some more.

    evilintent on
    6a00d83451c45669e2011571303907970b-.jpg
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Yes, I was clearly bashing on education. I want my children to grow up without an education. It's a little experiment of mine to see if I can reverse-engineer cavemen.

    Yes you clearly WERE BASHING EDUCATION if you think kids being taught the basics of sex and science are something people should fear.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I'm not afraid, I'd just rather do it myself.

    One of us is trying to tell the other what he can and can't do, and one of us isn't.

    joshofalltrades on
    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    One of us is trying to tell the other what he can and can't do, and one of us isn't.
    Someone call the police.

    Also, nobody has told you that you can't teach your kids about sex yourself. As a matter of fact, I believe I encouraged you to do it.

    Bama on
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    evilintent wrote: »
    Yes? You can choose to not have sex later in life, in which case you may be horribly scarred by that Miracle of Life video for nothing, and maybe a wacko teacher showing you how to put a condom on a banana; or cucumber; or dildo. Shit is scary.

    Read a motherfucking book. Sexuality isn't sex by any stretch of the term.

    Leitner on
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I'm not afraid, I'd just rather do it myself.

    One of us is trying to tell the other what he can and can't do, and one of us isn't.

    My question for you is "But why would you rather do it yourself?"

    Actually a better question is "Why are you concerned with the fundamentals of safe sex being taught in school?"

    Is it because you are uncomfortable with the idea of your youngsters learning about sex? I'm truly curious as to the why.

    DoctorArch on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • midgetspymidgetspy Registered User
    edited May 2009
    saint2e wrote: »
    Lizard wrote: »
    So I've done enough lurking to figure out the dynamics of this forum.

    One of you says conservatives are fucking stupid, then the rest of you start jerking each other off, repeat 20x the next day.

    Is that about right?

    Welcome to D&D.

    This post is hilarious because it's true.

    Seriously though, all this outrage seems contrived - this is the gov't granting a select few religious people the right to shelter their kids if they want. Whether you think they're idiots or not, surely this isn't that big of a deal?

    midgetspy on
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Great, so we're in agreement.

    I was educated about sex at home and I have a monogamous marriage with a healthy, happy sex life. You can stop telling me that your way is the only way now.

    joshofalltrades on
    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    midgetspy wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    Lizard wrote: »
    So I've done enough lurking to figure out the dynamics of this forum.

    One of you says conservatives are fucking stupid, then the rest of you start jerking each other off, repeat 20x the next day.

    Is that about right?

    Welcome to D&D.

    This post is hilarious because it's true.

    Are we conflation religious nutjobs (because lets face it, these are going to be the only people to pull their kids out of evolution classes) with conservatism? Because I find that kind of offensive.

    Leitner on
  • StarcrossStarcross Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Great, so we're in agreement.

    I was educated about sex at home and I have a monogamous marriage with a healthy, happy sex life. You can stop telling me that your way is the only way now.

    No one said that we're opposed to teaching your kids about sex. We said that sex ed needs to be necessary at school because some parents won't.

    Starcross on
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Great, so we're in agreement.

    I was educated about sex at home and I have a monogamous marriage with a healthy, happy sex life. You can stop telling me that your way is the only way now.
    Nobody said it was the only way.

    You still haven't told me how you plan to protect your children from the neo-nazi home ec teacher.

    Bama on
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Great, so we're in agreement.

    I was educated about sex at home and I have a monogamous marriage with a healthy, happy sex life. You can stop telling me that your way is the only way now.

    I had a family who thought sex in any form was a sin and laughed at me when I asked where babies came from. I also had a robust sexual education in school, was a virgin until I was married, and was happily monogamous until we divorced for other reasons. Your analogy is faulty.

    DoctorArch on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I'm not afraid, I'd just rather do it myself.

    One of us is trying to tell the other what he can and can't do, and one of us isn't.

    I'm sorry, does going to school mean you can't talk to your kids about what they learned?

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Kagera wrote: »
    I'm not afraid, I'd just rather do it myself.

    One of us is trying to tell the other what he can and can't do, and one of us isn't.

    I'm sorry, does going to school mean you can't talk to your kids about what they learned?
    Don't bother, he's not going to address any point that's too inconvenient to his argument.

    Bama on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Seriously, there are defensible reasons to withdraw your child from sex-ed that have nothing to do with being a freaky prude-boy. There is a reason we don't just teach sex-ed and STD prevention in kindergarten; children need to reach a certain level of emotional maturity before they can deal with all that info in a responsible fashion. And not all children mature at the same rate. While most kids held back from sex-ed classes are likely just saddled with freaky prude parents, there may be some who are actually so withheld for good cause. Parents should have that right, given that they are the best judges of their children's temperments, even if many parents will be stupid about it.

    This seems more an argument towards improving sex-ed rather than leaving it fucked up but letting parents pull their kids so hey, they can't complain. It reminds me of the idiotic ads in the primaries about how Obama wants to teach kindergartners about sodomy or something. Sex-ed should be a continually existent and continually appropriate facet of education from K-12. To help ensure that you don't hand out materials that are too mature for the kids in the class, even though that means aiming for the lowest common denominator, but that there still is something going on so that little kids know what constitutes inappropriate touching and teenagers get progressively more information on safe sex. You shouldn't just dump 5th graders and sophomores into a one off class, telling them that condoms exist, and pretend you did a good job.

    moniker on
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Starcross wrote: »
    Great, so we're in agreement.

    I was educated about sex at home and I have a monogamous marriage with a healthy, happy sex life. You can stop telling me that your way is the only way now.

    No one said that we're opposed to teaching your kids about sex. We said that sex ed needs to be necessary at school because some parents won't.

    Also, really, you can't teach any kind of biology without covering the ins and outs (olol) of sexual reproduction.

    japan on
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Bama wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    I'm not afraid, I'd just rather do it myself.

    One of us is trying to tell the other what he can and can't do, and one of us isn't.

    I'm sorry, does going to school mean you can't talk to your kids about what they learned?
    Don't bother, he's not going to address any point that's too inconvenient to his argument.

    "I don't like it' doesn't hold up too well in a debate.
    japan wrote: »
    Starcross wrote: »
    Great, so we're in agreement.

    I was educated about sex at home and I have a monogamous marriage with a healthy, happy sex life. You can stop telling me that your way is the only way now.

    No one said that we're opposed to teaching your kids about sex. We said that sex ed needs to be necessary at school because some parents won't.

    Also, really, you can't teach any kind of biology without covering the ins and outs (olol) of sexual reproduction.

    Just watching Animal Planet will teach you more about animal reproduction than your parents ever could.

    DoctorArch on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • BladeXBladeX Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Bama wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    I'm not afraid, I'd just rather do it myself.

    One of us is trying to tell the other what he can and can't do, and one of us isn't.

    I'm sorry, does going to school mean you can't talk to your kids about what they learned?
    Don't bother, he's not going to address any point that's too inconvenient to his argument.

    I was about to say this. I've seen people argue like this before and it basically boils down to (using this debate as the example):

    "People should just teach their kids at home."
    "Yeah, they should but some don't so its good to have sex-ed in school"
    "Well I was taught at home and I turned out fine so we don't need sex-ed in school and STOP TELLING ME YOUR WAY IS THE ONLY WAY!!"
    "Uhh, we weren't? We were just stating that sex ed would be a good addition since some parents don't teach it and if anything you're the one telling us your way is the only way.."
    "NUH-UH!"

    BladeX on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2009
    Archgarth wrote: »
    I think the issue with "many parents will be stupid about it" is the reason why we have sex-ed in the first place. We took a hard look at the issue and saw that people were having underage sex regardless of parental influence and teenage pregnancy/STD rates were skyrocketing. You want to teach your kid about sex yourself, fine, go right ahead. But it is in the public's best interest for that child to be knowledgeable about safe-sex. I think this is a clear case of public interest overriding the parent's. It's not like my sex-ed classes encouraged sex, which I think is what people's primary hang up is on. Here's a newsflash concerned parents: Your kid will want to have, and will think about sex all the time regardless of what you tell them. Having sex-ed will not encourage or discourage an individual from thinking about sex any more than they already do.

    Parents do not have ultimate say over every aspect of their children's lives (or rather, shouldn't), but they should also not have no say whatsoever. Let's go back to the hypothetical kindergarten lesson - school is teaching your kid that blowjobs are a great alternative to regular sex if you don't want to wind up preggers. Should a parent be allowed to object? Of course! And if you agree, then you also agree that parents should have some degree of say, and the only issue of contention is where to place that big ol fuzzy line.

    Parents have rights. And in granting them rights, you do so with the understanding that a lot of parents will use those rights in stupid, stupid ways. Just as a lot of people will use freedom of speech to say black people suck. It's how rights work, unfortunately, and you can't just run rough-shod over them in the name of "public interest", even if the public interest is, in fact, better served.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • cherv1cherv1 Registered User
    edited May 2009
    I was having a conversation with a Hispanic person today about sex education, and she said that the levels of teen pregnancy in countries like Spain and Italy were very low. These countries are pretty Catholic and old-fashioned; family values and the like, so is this why there are such few teen pregancies? They don't have Holland style sex-ed.

    cherv1 on
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    What do you mean by Holland-style sex ed? Sex education is pretty similar across much of Europe, and kicks in at about age 12-14.

    japan on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Archgarth wrote: »
    I think the issue with "many parents will be stupid about it" is the reason why we have sex-ed in the first place. We took a hard look at the issue and saw that people were having underage sex regardless of parental influence and teenage pregnancy/STD rates were skyrocketing. You want to teach your kid about sex yourself, fine, go right ahead. But it is in the public's best interest for that child to be knowledgeable about safe-sex. I think this is a clear case of public interest overriding the parent's. It's not like my sex-ed classes encouraged sex, which I think is what people's primary hang up is on. Here's a newsflash concerned parents: Your kid will want to have, and will think about sex all the time regardless of what you tell them. Having sex-ed will not encourage or discourage an individual from thinking about sex any more than they already do.

    Parents do not have ultimate say over every aspect of their children's lives (or rather, shouldn't), but they should also not have no say whatsoever. Let's go back to the hypothetical kindergarten lesson - school is teaching your kid that blowjobs are a great alternative to regular sex if you don't want to wind up preggers. Should a parent be allowed to object? Of course! And if you agree, then you also agree that parents should have some degree of say, and the only issue of contention is where to place that big ol fuzzy line.

    Parents have rights. And in granting them rights, you do so with the understanding that a lot of parents will use those rights in stupid, stupid ways. Just as a lot of people will use freedom of speech to say black people suck. It's how rights work, unfortunately, and you can't just run rough-shod over them in the name of "public interest", even if the public interest is, in fact, better served.

    The issue is that it is never so clear cut but rather wholly in the grey. So the question becomes, should there be slightly more deferment to the opinions of people knowledgeable of a field, or parents. Unsurprisingly the majority opinion here is the more technocratic one, but I don't see why it inherently needs to be an either/or situation rather than a discussion between the school, teachers, and parents over what the highest common factor is and shift the line appropriately. Rather than just abandoning the notion of teaching kids about condoms at all.

    moniker on
  • an_altan_alt Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    But by moving this shit into the human rights act you open a big can of worms. Lots of things, like evolution, could potential offend someone's religious beliefs, and if they decide to raise a fuss they could haul the teacher in front of a human rights tribunal, which is a far more serious act than whining to the principal.

    Are you suggesting that human rights legislation in Canada could be used for purposes other than what was intended?

    an_alt on
    Pony wrote:
    I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
    Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
    If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
  • TrusTrus Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Part of the problem here is that the School Act already enshrined a parent's right to opt their kid out of certain classes or discussions. If there was a sex discussion they weren't informed of, they could complain to the principal, superintendent of the district, etc.

    But by moving this shit into the human rights act you open a big can of worms. Lots of things, like evolution, could potential offend someone's religious beliefs, and if they decide to raise a fuss they could haul the teacher in front of a human rights tribunal, which is a far more serious act than whining to the principal.

    I dunno, the Canadian Human Rights Act states that: Canadians have the right to equality, equal opportunity, fair treatment, and an environment free of discrimination. The tribunals only applies these principles.

    I suppose you could make a case on the "fair treatment" part of the act, but I think thats a stretch.

    Trus on
    qFN53.png
  • ResRes __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2009
    Kagera wrote: »
    I mean, do you GET WHAT HAPPENS WITHOUT STANDARDIZED EDUCATION?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6076758.stm
    "The government must give tough penalties on this. Those crooks don't want to come and register.

    My heart bleeds for him.

    Res on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • GogoKodoGogoKodo Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Kagera wrote: »
    So it's the public school's job to teach our kids about sex? If I prefer to do that myself without some stranger teaching them God-knows-what I'm wrong?

    So it's the public school's job to teach our kids about the Civil Rights Movement?

    If I prefer to do that myself without some stranger teaching them God-knows-what I'm wrong?

    One of these two concepts involve personal lifestyle choices and the other is factual, historical information. Do you know the difference?

    Do you know what's taught in sex ed? I believe from my very own education in sex ed, in Alberta no less, facts and historical information. Things like, this is a penis, this is a condom. Condoms came into use at such and such a date.

    GogoKodo on
  • cherv1cherv1 Registered User
    edited May 2009
    japan wrote: »
    What do you mean by Holland-style sex ed? Sex education is pretty similar across much of Europe, and kicks in at about age 12-14.

    Well I'm not sure it is. The UK's system is certainly far behind that of Holland, which is held up as a shining example of what it could be. Meanwhile there seems to be no real correlation in teen pregnancy and anything else in this table:
    Country---Births and Abortions /1000
    Hungary 60.1
    United Kingdom 50.9
    Slovak Republic 43.6
    Iceland 42.1
    Czech Republic 32.5
    Norway 31.9
    Sweden 25.4
    Denmark 23.6
    France 22.6
    Finland 19.4
    Germany 18.3
    Belgium 15.1
    Greece 13.5
    Italy 13.3
    Spain 12.4
    Netherlands 11.6

    I mean, some of the countries at the top are poorer, but the UK, Iceland, Norway and Sweden aren't particularly. And Scandinavia and the Netherlands are often looked at as very left wing progressive countries, yet only one of them has good figures. And other than the Netherlands, the three best countries are the ones with the more Catholic values.

    cherv1 on
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Archgarth wrote: »
    I think the issue with "many parents will be stupid about it" is the reason why we have sex-ed in the first place. We took a hard look at the issue and saw that people were having underage sex regardless of parental influence and teenage pregnancy/STD rates were skyrocketing. You want to teach your kid about sex yourself, fine, go right ahead. But it is in the public's best interest for that child to be knowledgeable about safe-sex. I think this is a clear case of public interest overriding the parent's. It's not like my sex-ed classes encouraged sex, which I think is what people's primary hang up is on. Here's a newsflash concerned parents: Your kid will want to have, and will think about sex all the time regardless of what you tell them. Having sex-ed will not encourage or discourage an individual from thinking about sex any more than they already do.

    Parents do not have ultimate say over every aspect of their children's lives (or rather, shouldn't), but they should also not have no say whatsoever. Let's go back to the hypothetical kindergarten lesson - school is teaching your kid that blowjobs are a great alternative to regular sex if you don't want to wind up preggers. Should a parent be allowed to object? Of course! And if you agree, then you also agree that parents should have some degree of say, and the only issue of contention is where to place that big ol fuzzy line.

    Parents have rights. And in granting them rights, you do so with the understanding that a lot of parents will use those rights in stupid, stupid ways. Just as a lot of people will use freedom of speech to say black people suck. It's how rights work, unfortunately, and you can't just run rough-shod over them in the name of "public interest", even if the public interest is, in fact, better served.

    Why not? We have truancy laws. What makes public interest convincing in that case and unconvincing in the case of sex ed?

    Someone has already used this argument, but it's a good one and bears repeating. Taking for granted that "sex ed" means "recommending blowjobs as safe sex in kindergarten," what the hell does withholding your child from that class accomplish if they return to the same class the very next day? The child will hear a garbled repetition from their peers ("if you put your mouth on the peepee, no babies come out!" "Yeah! babies are going to come out of your peepee unless someone puts their mouth on it!" ) instead of the original crap from Mr. Garrison.

    It serves neither the public, the parents, nor their children to make sex ed optional in the worst case scenario.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    This doesn't really surprise me. It's Alberta, come on. A large part of the population is just anti-education in general. So many times I would tell people there, "I'm studying Engineering" and they would be like "Your wasting your time! Go get a job (in the oil fields) and get real experience! You're stupid!"

    Its like the polar opposite response you get from people in Ontario*.

    *I'm using Ontario as a counter-point because its the only other province I've lived in.

    Al_wat on
    PSN: AWATTT66| XBox Live: AWATTT66| Steam: AL-WAT| Battle.Net: ALWATTS #1320
    Origin: aiwatt| Switch: SW-8499-0918-5960
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    cherv1 wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    What do you mean by Holland-style sex ed? Sex education is pretty similar across much of Europe, and kicks in at about age 12-14.

    Well I'm not sure it is. The UK's system is certainly far behind that of Holland, which is held up as a shining example of what it could be. Meanwhile there seems to be no real correlation in teen pregnancy and anything else in this table:
    Country---Births and Abortions /1000
    Hungary 60.1
    United Kingdom 50.9
    Slovak Republic 43.6
    Iceland 42.1
    Czech Republic 32.5
    Norway 31.9
    Sweden 25.4
    Denmark 23.6
    France 22.6
    Finland 19.4
    Germany 18.3
    Belgium 15.1
    Greece 13.5
    Italy 13.3
    Spain 12.4
    Netherlands 11.6

    I mean, some of the countries at the top are poorer, but the UK, Iceland, Norway and Sweden aren't particularly. And Scandinavia and the Netherlands are often looked at as very left wing progressive countries, yet only one of them has good figures. And other than the Netherlands, the three best countries are the ones with the more Catholic values.

    I'm not sure what that's a table of. Pregnancies per 1000 whether or not they're carried to term? There are a lot of other factors that need to be taken into account to draw any conclusions from that data.

    I'm also not certain why you're comparing pregnancy stats in the first place. Is your point that cultural values will alter the impact of sex ed, such that it's more effective in some places than others? As far as I'm able to tell, the sex ed curriculum and ages at which it's taught appears to be broadly similar across various European countries (most of the cirricula seem to derive from a conference of European Education Ministers in the late '70s). I'm struggling to find anything about Spain specifically, other than that the Vatican complained when same-sex relationships were added to their sex-ed cirriculum a couple of years ago.

    japan on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Archgarth wrote: »
    I think the issue with "many parents will be stupid about it" is the reason why we have sex-ed in the first place. We took a hard look at the issue and saw that people were having underage sex regardless of parental influence and teenage pregnancy/STD rates were skyrocketing. You want to teach your kid about sex yourself, fine, go right ahead. But it is in the public's best interest for that child to be knowledgeable about safe-sex. I think this is a clear case of public interest overriding the parent's. It's not like my sex-ed classes encouraged sex, which I think is what people's primary hang up is on. Here's a newsflash concerned parents: Your kid will want to have, and will think about sex all the time regardless of what you tell them. Having sex-ed will not encourage or discourage an individual from thinking about sex any more than they already do.

    Parents do not have ultimate say over every aspect of their children's lives (or rather, shouldn't), but they should also not have no say whatsoever. Let's go back to the hypothetical kindergarten lesson - school is teaching your kid that blowjobs are a great alternative to regular sex if you don't want to wind up preggers. Should a parent be allowed to object? Of course! And if you agree, then you also agree that parents should have some degree of say, and the only issue of contention is where to place that big ol fuzzy line.

    Parents have rights. And in granting them rights, you do so with the understanding that a lot of parents will use those rights in stupid, stupid ways. Just as a lot of people will use freedom of speech to say black people suck. It's how rights work, unfortunately, and you can't just run rough-shod over them in the name of "public interest", even if the public interest is, in fact, better served.

    The issue is that it is never so clear cut but rather wholly in the grey. So the question becomes, should there be slightly more deferment to the opinions of people knowledgeable of a field, or parents. Unsurprisingly the majority opinion here is the more technocratic one, but I don't see why it inherently needs to be an either/or situation rather than a discussion between the school, teachers, and parents over what the highest common factor is and shift the line appropriately. Rather than just abandoning the notion of teaching kids about condoms at all.

    I believe the line can be drawn based on whether or not the objection stems from the nature of the child or the nature of the subject material itself. Yanking your kid because OH NOES EVOLUTION necessarily has nothing to do with the child. The parent doesn't like the facts that will be taught. Well hey - the parent can deal. With sex-ed, one could argue the parent is not objecting to the facts being taught, but to the timing thereof. They may want their kid to learn all about sex, but feel the child is not yet ready. And the guy five states over who developed the curriculum is not, and fundamentally cannot be, an expert on the best way to teach sex-ed to this particular child.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Archgarth wrote: »
    I think the issue with "many parents will be stupid about it" is the reason why we have sex-ed in the first place. We took a hard look at the issue and saw that people were having underage sex regardless of parental influence and teenage pregnancy/STD rates were skyrocketing. You want to teach your kid about sex yourself, fine, go right ahead. But it is in the public's best interest for that child to be knowledgeable about safe-sex. I think this is a clear case of public interest overriding the parent's. It's not like my sex-ed classes encouraged sex, which I think is what people's primary hang up is on. Here's a newsflash concerned parents: Your kid will want to have, and will think about sex all the time regardless of what you tell them. Having sex-ed will not encourage or discourage an individual from thinking about sex any more than they already do.

    Parents do not have ultimate say over every aspect of their children's lives (or rather, shouldn't), but they should also not have no say whatsoever. Let's go back to the hypothetical kindergarten lesson - school is teaching your kid that blowjobs are a great alternative to regular sex if you don't want to wind up preggers. Should a parent be allowed to object? Of course! And if you agree, then you also agree that parents should have some degree of say, and the only issue of contention is where to place that big ol fuzzy line.

    Parents have rights. And in granting them rights, you do so with the understanding that a lot of parents will use those rights in stupid, stupid ways. Just as a lot of people will use freedom of speech to say black people suck. It's how rights work, unfortunately, and you can't just run rough-shod over them in the name of "public interest", even if the public interest is, in fact, better served.

    The issue is that it is never so clear cut but rather wholly in the grey. So the question becomes, should there be slightly more deferment to the opinions of people knowledgeable of a field, or parents. Unsurprisingly the majority opinion here is the more technocratic one, but I don't see why it inherently needs to be an either/or situation rather than a discussion between the school, teachers, and parents over what the highest common factor is and shift the line appropriately. Rather than just abandoning the notion of teaching kids about condoms at all.

    I believe the line can be drawn based on whether or not the objection stems from the nature of the child or the nature of the subject material itself. Yanking your kid because OH NOES EVOLUTION necessarily has nothing to do with the child. The parent doesn't like the facts that will be taught. Well hey - the parent can deal. With sex-ed, one could argue the parent is not objecting to the facts being taught, but to the timing thereof. They may want their kid to learn all about sex, but feel the child is not yet ready. And the guy five states over who developed the curriculum is not, and fundamentally cannot be, an expert on the best way to teach sex-ed to this particular child.

    And what about the teacher in that particular class and/or the school board of that particular school?

    moniker on
  • cherv1cherv1 Registered User
    edited May 2009
    japan wrote: »
    cherv1 wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    What do you mean by Holland-style sex ed? Sex education is pretty similar across much of Europe, and kicks in at about age 12-14.

    Well I'm not sure it is. The UK's system is certainly far behind that of Holland, which is held up as a shining example of what it could be. Meanwhile there seems to be no real correlation in teen pregnancy and anything else in this table:
    Country---Births and Abortions /1000
    Hungary 60.1
    United Kingdom 50.9
    Slovak Republic 43.6
    Iceland 42.1
    Czech Republic 32.5
    Norway 31.9
    Sweden 25.4
    Denmark 23.6
    France 22.6
    Finland 19.4
    Germany 18.3
    Belgium 15.1
    Greece 13.5
    Italy 13.3
    Spain 12.4
    Netherlands 11.6

    I mean, some of the countries at the top are poorer, but the UK, Iceland, Norway and Sweden aren't particularly. And Scandinavia and the Netherlands are often looked at as very left wing progressive countries, yet only one of them has good figures. And other than the Netherlands, the three best countries are the ones with the more Catholic values.

    I'm not sure what that's a table of. Pregnancies per 1000 whether or not they're carried to term? There are a lot of other factors that need to be taken into account to draw any conclusions from that data.

    I'm also not certain why you're comparing pregnancy stats in the first place. Is your point that cultural values will alter the impact of sex ed, such that it's more effective in some places than others? As far as I'm able to tell, the sex ed curriculum and ages at which it's taught appears to be broadly similar across various European countries (most of the cirricula seem to derive from a conference of European Education Ministers in the late '70s). I'm struggling to find anything about Spain specifically, other than that the Vatican complained when same-sex relationships were added to their sex-ed cirriculum a couple of years ago.

    It's just a table of the amount of teenage pregnancies. What I'm saying is, in the UK, Holland is seen as how good sex ed should be, because they start at an early age, and are very open with children about it. What I'm wondering is, why traditional Catholic countries like Spain and Italy have such low rates of teen pregnancy, despite not being nearly so open about sex, generally.

    cherv1 on
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    What makes me laugh about this is that in the same bill that meant to expand human rights to homosexuals in Texberta (I mean, Alberta), they want to allow parents the ability to pull kids out of classes where homosexuality is discussed.

    "We don't like fags and our kids don't gotta learn about them!"
    You wanna bitch about your state, fine, but leave mine out of it.

    GungHo on
    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2009
    Why not? We have truancy laws. What makes public interest convincing in that case and unconvincing in the case of sex ed?

    Because the hit to public interest from having a child grow up without ever receiving an education at all is far greater than that from having a kid not know how to slap a condom on the ol banana?
    Someone has already used this argument, but it's a good one and bears repeating. Taking for granted that "sex ed" means "recommending blowjobs as safe sex in kindergarten," what the hell does withholding your child from that class accomplish if they return to the same class the very next day? The child will hear a garbled repetition from their peers ("if you put your mouth on the peepee, no babies come out!" "Yeah! babies are going to come out of your peepee unless someone puts their mouth on it!" ) instead of the original crap from Mr. Garrison.

    It serves neither the public, the parents, nor their children to make sex ed optional in the worst case scenario.

    Well, yes. And one could argue that there's a risk of having a child attend any class at all, because that one weird kid might show up at recess and tell everyone about the time mommy and daddy were wrestling naked on the bed. But you have to draw reasonable lines in the sand somewhere. Are you asserting, then, that the parent should have no right at all to determine how their child is educated? What about private schools, where the curriculum overall may differ slightly from that in public schools? You could argue that the public school curriculum is set up that way for a good reason, and the parent should have no right to deviate from it even slightly by pursuing a private school. You could further argue that a parent should never be allowed to pull their child from school to go on vacation, because he might miss valuable lessons.

    If you grant that the parent should have at least limited say in how the kid is educated, at least to the point where the parent can determine when the kid can afford to miss a few days of school and go on vacation, then it's not too far a leap to letting them adjust the timing of a particular, very sensitive lesson.

    There's also the fact that even if we don't explicitly offer parents the chance to yank their kid for a day, they can almost certainly find out when that lesson will be taught, and then have Jimmy conveniently on vacation for that day.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
Sign In or Register to comment.