Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

What the hell happened to Texas?Follow

#127 Nov 01 2011 at 3:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
Congress votes on hundreds of such administrative laws every single session. It's not like they expended a ton of effort on this one.


If they had, I would have gotten grumpy. As is I can't really complain about this one. It falls safely into the 'meh' category. I expect both sides to waste lots of time posturing on budget battles over the next year-ish, so this is a drop in the bucket.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#128 Nov 01 2011 at 3:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You do realize that "abstinence only" is just a name for a curriculum set, right? If a school district accepts funds for abstinence only education, that does not preclude them from accepting funds for contraceptive based education as well.
Actually under §510, to gain funding for Abstinence Only programs they were prohibited from teaching about contraceptive except to discuss their failure rates. In fact, in 2007 the latest grant announcement also required states to provide assurance that funded programs and curricula “do not promote contraception and/or condom use.


In that specific curriculum, yes. Well, it's not in the code itself, but I'll take your word on the grant announcement. I'm still unclear what the problem is here. Schools and/or districts are free to choose which education they wish to provide. No one's forcing them to pick a specific one. It's not like funding for comprehensive sex education was eliminated during this same time period.

Step away from which one you personally agree with and look at the issue objectively. If the government funds only one form of curriculum, then it creates a financial penalty for any school who teaches the other. If the government provides grants for both (or neither!), then that penalty is eliminated and schools are free to make their own choices. One of those options involves government using its money to manipulate schools into making a given choice. The other(s) don't.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#129 Nov 01 2011 at 3:58 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Are there grants for non Abstinence Only programs? Please show them to me.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#130 Nov 01 2011 at 4:02 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm still unclear what the problem is here.
It's more commentary on the school districts themselves than the government itself, though I still find it a little underhanded. Schools can choose whichever to go with, and get funded as such. However, one says "to get this money, you're not allowed to teach this as an acceptable option," while the other doesn't have a qualifier attached to it. The existence of Abstinence Only Funding seems pointless except as an excuse for school districts to keep from teaching about contraceptives and safe sex practices.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#131 Nov 01 2011 at 4:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Are there grants for non Abstinence Only programs? Please show them to me.


Are you seriously asking this question?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#132 Nov 01 2011 at 4:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm still unclear what the problem is here.
It's more commentary on the school districts themselves than the government itself, though I still find it a little underhanded. Schools can choose whichever to go with, and get funded as such. However, one says "to get this money, you're not allowed to teach this as an acceptable option," while the other doesn't have a qualifier attached to it.


That's really a matter of perspective though, isn't it? One limits the discussion to abstinence, while the other "mandates" that contraceptive methods also be taught. Which one has qualifiers attached? I would say that *both* of them do. Saying otherwise is to simply inject your own bias into the issue. Both "require" a different set of curriculum. Both are in alignment with two competing schools of thought in the US on the subject.

Again, I don't see why this is a problem. If we're going to fund sexual education at all, shouldn't we allow funding that matches what people want their children to learn?

Quote:
The existence of Abstinence Only Funding seems pointless except as an excuse for school districts to keep from teaching about contraceptives and safe sex practices.


Yes. That's exactly the point. While you may not agree, there are a lot of people (and parents!) who do believe that by teaching about contraceptive use and safe sex practices, we encourage more sexual behavior among teens, by normalizing sexual behavior. Whether you agree or disagree isn't really the point. If a majority of the parents of the students in a given school don't want their kids learning something, should the government act contrary to that desire?


I'll also point out that this is where I'd usually insert my patented "if only we used school vouchers, we could give parents choices about where their kids go to school and eliminate a whole lot of issues like this" spiel. The problem, ultimately, isn't really about sex education, but the fact that public school has to attempt to satisfy the education needs of all the children in a given area. The structure of our school system gives parents very little choice about what school their children attend. Thus, we have a "captive audience" in some ways, leading us to these grand fights over curriculum. Sex education is just one area. Textbooks is another. History and Social Studies are other biggies.

Edited, Nov 1st 2011 3:21pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#133 Nov 01 2011 at 4:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji is wrong about the abstinence education funding. Teaching anything besides abstinence disqualified the district from taking grants.

Quote:
If we're going to fund sexual education at all, shouldn't we allow funding that matches what people want their children to learn?

We should teach what's accurate and effective. If you want to teach inaccurate and ineffective sex education, go homeschool. Spoken as a parent.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#134 Nov 01 2011 at 4:35 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
That's really a matter of perspective though, isn't it? One limits the discussion to abstinence, while the other "mandates" that contraceptive methods also be taught. Which one has qualifiers attached?
"One limits the discussion to abstinence only, while the other has no such limit and can discuss both." "One 'mandates' that contraceptive methods be taught, while the other 'mandates' that the only mention of anything that isn't abstinence only be discussed at their failure rates only"

You're not so smart as to be able to play semantics to press your agenda and confuse everyone around you.

For the record, I'd rather my daughter get a comprehensive education, while her future boyfriends will be getting a Scared Straight education. I have a gun vault ready for it.

Edited, Nov 1st 2011 6:38pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#135 Nov 01 2011 at 4:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm still unclear what the problem is here.
It's more commentary on the school districts themselves than the government itself, though I still find it a little underhanded. Schools can choose whichever to go with, and get funded as such. However, one says "to get this money, you're not allowed to teach this as an acceptable option," while the other doesn't have a qualifier attached to it.


That's really a matter of perspective though, isn't it? One limits the discussion to abstinence, while the other "mandates" that contraceptive methods also be taught. Which one has qualifiers attached? I would say that *both* of them do. Saying otherwise is to simply inject your own bias into the issue. Both "require" a different set of curriculum. Both are in alignment with two competing schools of thought in the US on the subject.


Well in theory one is inclusive and one is exclusive. The idea of presenting both options and their pros and cons goes out the window if you aren't allowed to discuss certain options.

gbaji wrote:
Again, I don't see why this is a problem. If we're going to fund sexual education at all, shouldn't we allow funding that matches what people want their children to learn?


And I agree here. Chances are if your in a conservative area you're going to get abstinence-heavy education, if you're in a more liberal area you're going to get more discussion about contraceptives; regardless of any legislation. Cultural differences and such...

Really it's not that hard for parents to just present whatever isn't getting taught by the schools. It's not exactly subject matter that they have no knowledge of. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#136 Nov 01 2011 at 4:43 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
How so? Gay marriage is specifically about not extending the government's funding of an activity (marriage in this case). What you're arguing is pretty darn similar to the whole "We already fund pregnancies, so why not abortions?" argument. We already provide benefits to straight couples, so why not gay couples as well? In both cases, the conservative position is in opposition to expanding the range of things that the government (taxpayer ultimately) is paying for because we fear teh gays and think abortion makes you a baby killer.



#137 Nov 01 2011 at 4:47 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
And I agree here. Chances are if your in a conservative area you're going to get abstinence-heavy education, if you're in a more liberal area you're going to get more discussion about contraceptives; regardless of any legislation. Cultural differences and such...
Sure, but why the need for two different sets of funds for essentially the same thing is my point. Just fund Sex Ed. Also keeps an administration from looking partial to either approach. If the parents don't want something be taught, the school district should not teach it. If they want it, they should. Why should there be a separate fund who's existence is basically only a "Get Out Of Debating With The Parents" card?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#138 Nov 01 2011 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
And I agree here. Chances are if your in a conservative area you're going to get abstinence-heavy education, if you're in a more liberal area you're going to get more discussion about contraceptives; regardless of any legislation. Cultural differences and such...
Sure, but why the need for two different sets of funds for essentially the same thing is my point. Just fund Sex Ed. Also keeps an administration from looking partial to either approach. If the parents don't want something be taught, the school district should not teach it. If they want it, they should. Why should there be a separate fund who's existence is basically only a "Get Out Of Debating With The Parents" card?


Makes sense to me. However, social values legislation is a good motivator for a party base. For both sides really...

Edited, Nov 1st 2011 3:54pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#139 Nov 01 2011 at 4:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji is wrong about the abstinence education funding. Teaching anything besides abstinence disqualified the district from taking grants.


I don't believe that's true at the federal level (but may be so based on state criteria). But honestly, it's a moot point. Even if we assume it's a district decision rather than a per-school decision, isn't that still a great argument for breaking up the monolithic public school system? Who decides what a "district" is? Does that concept even exist from the federal grant level? It's not as simple as you imply, and is still something which could be fixed via a voucher system.

Quote:
Quote:
If we're going to fund sexual education at all, shouldn't we allow funding that matches what people want their children to learn?

We should teach what's accurate and effective. If you want to teach inaccurate and ineffective sex education, go homeschool. Spoken as a parent.


Who gets to decide what is "accurate and effective"? Who sets even the criteria for making that determination? And does that determination override the parents views on the subject? We're not talking about match, or reading, or science here. We're talking about specific sexual education. This is not something that schools must teach in order to prepare students for entering the job market later in life. It's controversial for schools to be involved in this in the first place.

Not all parents (or even a good percentage of them) have the time or money to send their kids to private schools or to homeschool. It seems absurd to argue that if someone doesn't like some curriculum in a public school system which exists because of an assumption that most people can't afford to educate their children without said system that they should just homeschool.


Well, why don't we just eliminate public school entirely then? If you want your kid educated, then homeschool? That's not really an answer, is it? So how about we not pretend its the answer here either.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#140 Nov 01 2011 at 4:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
Who gets to decide what is "accurate and effective"? Who sets even the criteria for making that determination? And does that determination override the parents views on the subject? We're not talking about match, or reading, or science here.


Smiley: dubious

Sounds like you'd turn it over to a scientist. Keep track of who took which program, and rates of various things like STDs, unwanted pregnancies and such.

We all know those scientists are a bunch of hippies though, can't be trusted with it. Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#141 Nov 01 2011 at 5:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I don't believe that's true at the federal level

You're wrong. I've cited and linked to the legislation and examples of federal education grants in previous threads.

Edit: Technically, I think it was codified into the HHS/DoE grant rules at an executive level, not a legislative level since Bush, as I recall, passed the ban as an executive order. In any event, I've linked to the criteria and legal language before.

Quote:
But honestly, it's a moot point.

Not towards my point of laughing at your Pollyanna attitude towards conservative social engineering and your blind insistence that it doesn't exist until they've outlawed abortion. So I'm not really interested in yet another school system debate since that wasn't my point.

Edited, Nov 1st 2011 6:02pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#142 Nov 01 2011 at 5:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Well in theory one is inclusive and one is exclusive. The idea of presenting both options and their pros and cons goes out the window if you aren't allowed to discuss certain options.


So you support teaching creationism alongside evolution in science class then? After all, if we teach both then that's inclusive, but teaching only evolution, we're being exclusive, right?

Do you see how that's not a good argument all by itself?

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Again, I don't see why this is a problem. If we're going to fund sexual education at all, shouldn't we allow funding that matches what people want their children to learn?


And I agree here. Chances are if your in a conservative area you're going to get abstinence-heavy education, if you're in a more liberal area you're going to get more discussion about contraceptives; regardless of any legislation. Cultural differences and such...


Correct. My point is just that if we're going to provide grant money to teaching one set of curriculum, but not the other, then it's unfair to those who live in areas where they'd prefer the other be taught.

Quote:
Really it's not that hard for parents to just present whatever isn't getting taught by the schools. It's not exactly subject matter that they have no knowledge of. Smiley: rolleyes


Parents can't "unteach" what their kids are taught though. A parent who really really cares that his kids be taught about contraception may do so in addition to the abstinence that kid is taught in school. But if he doesn't want his kid learning about contraception and the school teaches about contraceptive use he's got that parental choice taken away from him, doesn't he?


It just seems a bit strange to me to argue for a given set of instruction on the assumption that it's really important, but since many parents aren't going to be involved enough to ensure their kids learn it, we must teach it in the schools, but this decision is made over the objections of parents who are actively involved in what their children learn and actively do not want them to be taught these things. Why is it ok to demand that those parents homeschool as their option, but we give those other parents a pass on their inability to teach their own kids about contraception? If it's really that important, they can teach it, right?


Seems like a hell of a double standard to me.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#143 Nov 01 2011 at 5:03 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Who gets to decide what is "accurate and effective"? Who sets even the criteria for making that determination? And does that determination override the parents views on the subject? We're not talking about match, or reading, or science here.


Smiley: dubious

Sounds like you'd turn it over to a scientist. Keep track of who took which program, and rates of various things like STDs, unwanted pregnancies and such.


Last time we had this debate, someone linked to some data showing that overall rates of STDs and teen pregnancy were exactly the same among students who took abstinence only versus those who had comprehensive sex education. This was used to argue that abstinence only didn't work.

Do you see the flaw with that reasoning?

Quote:
We all know those scientists are a bunch of hippies though, can't be trusted with it. Smiley: disappointed


It's not the science that's usually the problem, but how that science gets interpreted in the political arena.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#144 Nov 01 2011 at 5:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
And I agree here. Chances are if your in a conservative area you're going to get abstinence-heavy education, if you're in a more liberal area you're going to get more discussion about contraceptives; regardless of any legislation. Cultural differences and such...
Sure, but why the need for two different sets of funds for essentially the same thing is my point. Just fund Sex Ed. Also keeps an administration from looking partial to either approach. If the parents don't want something be taught, the school district should not teach it. If they want it, they should. Why should there be a separate fund who's existence is basically only a "Get Out Of Debating With The Parents" card?


You do realize that there would have been no need for anyone to create that separate fund for "abstinence only" sex ed, if the existing funds for sex ed didn't require that contraceptive methods be taught to students, right? It was exactly because of requirements in the existing federal grants for sex education which lead to the creation of a second set teaching something different.


If the details of sex education had just been left up to the individual schools/districts/whatever, we wouldn't be having this discussion. So... Once again, it's not the right creating some government intervention, but rather responding to it and trying to lessen/counter its effects.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#145 Nov 01 2011 at 5:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Last time we had this debate, someone linked to some data showing that overall rates of STDs and teen pregnancy were exactly the same among students who took abstinence only versus those who had comprehensive sex education. This was used to argue that abstinence only didn't work.

Last time we had this debate, someone linked to a study you misread, then insisted you knew better than anyone else about, then said you could read the data better, then insisted that the data didn't matter because...

Hell, it was hilarious. People should read it for themselves. Start at Post #46
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#146 Nov 01 2011 at 5:19 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
I'm going to completely ignore your "There wouldn't be a need for a second fund for abstinence only if it was the only option" argument because, quite frankly, it's beyond retarded, and just say that:
gbaji wrote:
Once again, it's not the right creating some government intervention
Wait, what? Are you so much of a Right Wing Shill that you have to defend them even when no argument is being made against them? Are you so paranoid that you see "ANTI REPUBLICAN" on everything? I know I suggested you get help for it before ... you really need help.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#147 Nov 01 2011 at 5:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
So you're going to rehash a study you posted which showed that during a time period in which the percentage of students taught abstinence only education in our public schools increased by a factor of 12, the rates of teen pregnancies and STDs decreased? And you think this helps your argument today how, exactly?

I was mystified by how otherwise intelligent people can read a set of data that clearly shows one thing, but then accept without question the claims by "experts" which state exactly the opposite back then. And I'm still mystified by that today. Stop reading what someone tells you the data means and actually look at the damn data. Sheesh!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#148 Nov 01 2011 at 5:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I'm going to completely ignore your "There wouldn't be a need for a second fund for abstinence only if it was the only option" argument because, quite frankly, it's beyond retarded....


Huh? Why? If existing sex education grant money did not require that contraceptives be taught as an effective means of preventing pregnancy and STDs, why on earth would *anyone* spend time and money creating a second grant for sex ed programs which don't teach those things? They'd just create those programs at the state and even district level and collect their federal grant money, right? You'd be able to get those same grants whether you were teaching abstinence only, or comprehensive if that was the case.

Clearly, it was not the case though. How is this hard for you to see?


Quote:
... and just say that:
gbaji wrote:
Once again, it's not the right creating some government intervention
Wait, what? Are you so much of a Right Wing Shill that you have to defend them even when no argument is being made against them? Are you so paranoid that you see "ANTI REPUBLICAN" on everything? I know I suggested you get help for it before ... you really need help.


Huh? This entire part of the topic came up as an example of conservatives using "big government funding" to push a social agenda in response to my statement that conservatives only do this to prevent or in response to liberals already doing so. So yeah, it's kinda relevant to show that sex education with requirements which conservatives didn't agree with existed *before* anyone pushed for abstinence only education.

It's not paranoia on my part. This was in direct response to someone arguing that AO was an example of conservatives violating the small government principles I've been talking about in this thread.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#149 Nov 01 2011 at 5:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So you're going to rehash a study...

No, I'm just linking to the thread. You embarrassed yourself enough back then for me that I can let everyone else read it and draw their own conclusions Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#150 Nov 01 2011 at 5:57 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's not paranoia on my part.
Of course it isn't, sweety. Everyone really is out to get you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#151 Nov 01 2011 at 7:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:

I was mystified by how otherwise intelligent people can read a set of data that clearly shows one thing, but then accept without question the claims by "experts" which state exactly the opposite back then. And I'm still mystified by that today. Stop reading what someone tells you the data means and actually look at the damn data. Sheesh!


My favorite part of these discussions is watching the two different sides play connect the dots with the same data and end up at two entirely different conclusions. It's positively entertaining. Smiley: smile

Also as an aside, I've seen a number of scientists take way too many liberties in their discussion sections. It can get quite humorous at times. Smiley: lol
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 271 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (271)