[quote]pookie wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
Teaching abstinence is irrelevant and off topic.
…
how they’re a pretty typical family dealing with (unfortunately) common circumstances.
I think that teaching abstinence as the only valid form of birth control leads directly to the unfortunate circumstances being so common.
[/quote]
Once again - please cite the reference where I can find a quote from Palin saying that abstinence is the only valid form of birth control.
Everytime a kid tries abstinence it WORKS!
All the sex education in the world does not guarantee a kid will not cross that line.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
But I guess when it comes time for actually putting your money where yout mouth is with respect to exposing your children to different viewpoints, you are a lot more talk than you are action.[/quote]
Do you have any points to make in the discussion or will this simple attempt to divert the debate be your best contribution?
We did not have near the out of wedlock births 60 yrs ago and we did not have sex education.
Can one of you sex education in school advocates explain that one?
Don’t tell me they were having sex too - I am talking about out of wedlock births - it was not even close to the rate today.
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
“endowed by our Creator” what do you think the founders meant??? [/quote]
There is a difference between believing in an ultimate creator and the literal belief in the Genesis story of the Bible.
Both side can be talked about in school. Not just in science class. There is nothing scientific about most creation myth. The “theory” they propose is “God did it” which, as nice as it is, really explains nothing, predicts nothing and can’t be tested. It’s basically a more comfortable version of “we don’t know.”
If you wish to teach the Bible and Genesis in a religious studies class, then that’s different.
[quote]The founders obviously believed in Creation. That does not mean it has to be taught as fact. But it should certainly be taught that the framers of our Constitution believed in it. And so do many Americans.
What is the problem with that?[/quote]
Again, no problem as long as it’s not called “science.”
That’s the exact problem right there. There are untold myriads of things that just may be true. Maybe fairies exist; or elves. Maybe dragons are hidden in some jungle somewhere, feasting on unicorns. The problem is that there is no way to test whether it is true or not.
Pookie, that’s great for you and your family.
However, the effectiveness of abstinence as birth control isn’t the focus of the thread.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Once again - please cite the reference where I can find a quote from Palin saying that abstinence is the only valid form of birth control.[/quote]
[i]By the way, as has been pointed out, Palin backed abstinence-only education during her 2006 gubernatorial race. In an Eagle Forum Alaska questionnaire, Palin gave this response to the following question:
Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
Palin: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.[/i]
Will you be reverting to this “please cite a reference” tactic every time you find yourself unable to argue your side?
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
We did not have near the out of wedlock births 60 yrs ago and we did not have sex education.[/quote]
Please cite your references for both affirmations.
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
But I guess when it comes time for actually putting your money where yout mouth is with respect to exposing your children to different viewpoints, you are a lot more talk than you are action.
Do you have any points to make in the discussion or will this simple attempt to divert the debate be your best contribution?
[/quote]
I’m not diverting anything. In fact, I am waiting on you to dig up some references.
I just thought it was worth mentioning that you want your children to be exposed to other viewpoints but you just don’t want them in your schools, offered side by side with shit you agree with.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Pookie, that’s great for you and your family.
However, the effectiveness of abstinence as birth control isn’t the focus of the thread.[/quote]
Am I preventing you from making whatever point you’d like to make?
I mean, it’s not like there’s a limited number of post slots and that I’m wasting them, is it?
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Once again - please cite the reference where I can find a quote from Palin saying that abstinence is the only valid form of birth control.
[i]By the way, as has been pointed out, Palin backed abstinence-only education during her 2006 gubernatorial race. In an Eagle Forum Alaska questionnaire, Palin gave this response to the following question:
Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
Palin: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.[/i]
Will you be reverting to this “please cite a reference” tactic every time you find yourself unable to argue your side?
[/quote]
Edit -
That wasn’t what I asked for, poindexter. Here, reread your statement, and then reread my request:
This is you:
I think that teaching abstinence as the only valid form of birth control leads directly to the unfortunate circumstances being so common.
This is what I asked for:
Once again - please cite the reference where I can find a quote from Palin saying that abstinence is the only valid form of birth control.
No go back, and try harder. Not wanting explicit sex-ed in the classroom is hardly what I asked you to find.
Now run along and try again.
Oh - Where’s the quote on her saying “She thinks you can drill yourself out of your current energy problems”?
It must suck not being able to make shit up and have it pass as fact, huh?
Pookie, not at all-- please continue with your Red Herring.
Hey, since thread topic is irrelevant, what do you think of the new MazdaSpeed3 hatchbacks? I’m thinking of picking up a 5-speed.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
pookie wrote:
She thinks you can drill yourself out of your current energy problems.
Please cite your references for this statement. [/quote]
Will this one do:
Or maybe this one:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08302008/news/nationalnews/palin_a_pol_who_knows_the_drill_126728.htm
You can then ignore the content and concentrate on dismissing the source.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I just thought it was worth mentioning that you want your children to be exposed to other viewpoints but you just don’t want them in your schools, offered side by side with shit you agree with.[/quote]
On the contrary, I’d love to see them in the schools; I simply don’t want a bunch of non-scientific beliefs mixed into the science curriculum.
Science has a rather precise definition; teaching it correctly also has measurable benefits.
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
pookie wrote:
She thinks you can drill yourself out of your current energy problems.
Please cite your references for this statement.
Will this one do:
Or maybe this one:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08302008/news/nationalnews/palin_a_pol_who_knows_the_drill_126728.htm
You can then ignore the content and concentrate on dismissing the source.
[/quote]
That’s real nice. I think it is common knowledge that Palin is in favor of tapping our own reserves to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Once again, that’s not what you said.
You think that is the same thing as “drilling our way out of our oil problems”? In what fucking universe?
GO back, and try again. Only this time, try and find something to support what you originally credit her with saying - not what is common knowledge.
Maybe you should be the one actually reading the articles first, don’t you think?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
[b]Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of …?
Palin: Yes, …[/i][/b][/quote]
I’ve removed the complicated parts for you.
[quote]pookie wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
“endowed by our Creator” what do you think the founders meant???
There is a difference between believing in an ultimate creator and the literal belief in the Genesis story of the Bible.
why shouldn’t both sides be talked about in schools?
Both side can be talked about in school. Not just in science class. There is nothing scientific about most creation myth. The “theory” they propose is “God did it” which, as nice as it is, really explains nothing, predicts nothing and can’t be tested. It’s basically a more comfortable version of “we don’t know.”
If you wish to teach the Bible and Genesis in a religious studies class, then that’s different.
The founders obviously believed in Creation. That does not mean it has to be taught as fact. But it should certainly be taught that the framers of our Constitution believed in it. And so do many Americans.
What is the problem with that?
Again, no problem as long as it’s not called “science.”
God forbid we teach something that just may be true!!!
That’s the exact problem right there. There are untold myriads of things that just may be true. Maybe fairies exist; or elves. Maybe dragons are hidden in some jungle somewhere, feasting on unicorns. The problem is that there is no way to test whether it is true or not.
[/quote]
You make as much sense as Alan Colmes. Fairies may be true??? Unicorns???
It really is a handicap to be a liberal.
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I just thought it was worth mentioning that you want your children to be exposed to other viewpoints but you just don’t want them in your schools, offered side by side with shit you agree with.
On the contrary, I’d love to see them in the schools; I simply don’t want a bunch of non-scientific beliefs mixed into the science curriculum.
Science has a rather precise definition; teaching it correctly also has measurable benefits.
[/quote]
Nice cover. Doesn’t fool me, but I am sure there are a bunch of suckers out there that will be fooled.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Pookie, not at all-- please continue with your Red Herring.
Hey, since thread topic is irrelevant, what do you think of the new MazdaSpeed3 hatchbacks? I’m thinking of picking up a 5-speed.[/quote]
I think Mazdas are pretty cool cars, but that Mazda is often too much in love with new tech vs. proven tech.
The parts to fix the car - assuming you keep it long enough - will cost you an arm and a leg and have little chances of being available from third parties.
I’m still mystified about how I’m able to keep you from posting on-topic?
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
[b]Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of …?
Palin: Yes, …[/i][/b]
I’ve removed the complicated parts for you. [/quote]
That is not birth control, dimwit. You either don’t understand what the hell is going on, or you used the wrong words in your original statements.
Sex education is not a form of birth control. Never has been never will be.
Reading is such a glorious tool if one chooses to actually use it.