Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   abstinece-only sex education
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 76 of 306 (312458)
05-16-2006 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Faith
05-16-2006 12:03 PM


Re: Science is getting too big for its britches
Dear me, Faith. So many misconceptions. Where to start . .
But no, we are not at the mercy of our biological forces. That doesn’t follow and no one said that.
Oh yes you did. Your argument was that abstinence can't work because of the strong biological forces the young have to deal with.
That’s not tantamount to denying free will. It is considering the ultimate, as opposed to proximate, causes of behavior. But you don’t accept evolution, so I won’t go into it.
Faith writes:
. the refusal of society at large to inculcate and enforce moral rules as was done in saner times.
You mean like during the dark ages or the inquisition? They had much better enforcement of your precious ”moral laws’ back then. And they still had prostitution, homosexuality, and all the supposedly ”immoral’ behaviors we see today.
Faith writes:
One only has to "manipulate" animals or automatons. Human beings are rational creatures who can think about the problem and respond to social standards and ideals.
So teaching abstinence is NOT an attempt to manipulate human behavior !?
Faith writes:
When Science arrives at its Scientifically Processed Assessment of what is Fact versus Fantasy it then makes dogmatic pronouncements as if it *knows* them to be true
Once again, you are talking about science as an entity which it isn’t. You have to level that accusation at scientists.
Faith writes:
..about for instance how abstinence won't work because of biological factors
I said the evidence suggests it isn’t working. You haven’t produced any evidence to suggest it is. Scientific opinion is balanced on a balance of the evidence and you haven’t produced any. You are not only presenting dogma and hoping it will pass for evidence, but you are also dismissing evidence-based conclusions as dogmatic pronouncements when they are no such thing.
Faith writes:
. it further dogmatically pronounces all opposition ignorant, dangerous and the like, as "unnatural and distorted" for instance, as you say farther on.
Let’s not take things out of context. I (*personally* - not in the name of SCIENCE) pronounced the christian phobia of all things sexual as ”unnatural and distorted’, among other things. This is well-recognized - the puritanical fear of sex as something dirty and ”ungodly’ - and that’s the reason your ilk opposes sex education despite the obvious benefits.
Faith writes:
There isn't a shred of civility allowable from the Scientific Perspective. Science PRONOUNCES. It does posture as "knowing" and it condemns all opposition.
I submit that science is one of the most civil and honorable of all human enterprises. It never condemns opposition- only challenges it to produce evidence (which, once more, I notice you haven’t - evidence that abstinence works, that is).
Faith writes:
You refuse to consider the position suggested at all.
Not so, I have considered it objectively, but I have yet to see evidence of its effectiveness, although I have certainly seen evidence of its negative consequences.
Faith writes:
You are *certain" it is wrong.
No, I am simply waiting for some evidence that it *is* working. Still don’t see any.
Faith writes:
OK, so the culture is at the mercy of biological forces . I can't begin to say how depressing such language is -- this mechanistic language and concepts given us by Evolution, by Science.
Faith, when you are seeking mechanistic solutions to a demographic problem you have to employ mechanistic language and concepts. You only find it depressing because it excludes your preferred ”non-mechanistic’ world view.
Faith writes:
And you said nothing about useful information, only that there's something fixed and immutable about the frequency of biological behaviors etc.
Where did I say they were ”fixed and immutable’? Come on Faith, you try and twist everything to make it seem unreasonable when it isn’t. All I said is that sexual behavior has evolved as a function of strong biological forces and will not be effectively countered by teaching abstinence.
Faith writes:
We haven't even discussed the practicalities of sex education so you can drop that bit of misrepresentation. I haven't said a word on the subject of what should be taught in schools beyond the need to teach abstinence as a moral principle.
Why don’t you then. Don’t you think some education on the ”mechanics’ of human sexuality would be useful for teens to get while they are still young, insterad of learning by trial and error?
Faith writes:
Science, being amoral, decr(i)es that kind of stuff. Having no moral perspective it imposes an amoral perspective.
Wrong again. Science imposes no moral perspective. That’s what ”ammoral’ means. Now you are trying to equate ”ammorality’ with ”immorality’.
Faith writes:
I'm engaged here in arguing that the culture is going to hell in a handbasket because of the amoral attitude toward sex that is being taught in the schools
Is it? And here I thought it was because of rap music.
Faith writes:
For the last time, EZ, yes it is!. That IS how Science presents itself, as the Last Word, as the Arbiter of All Things, as The Measure of What's Right and True, and Judge and Executioner of anyone who doesn't have the scientific perspective. You guys need to listen to yourselves sometime.
Sorry Faith. ”Right’ in a moral sense and ”right’ in a scientific sense CANNOT be equated. This is what you are trying to do. Science makes no such judgements and teaches nothing about morality - these ”judgements’ w/r/t to morality only exist within your own inferences.
Faith writes:
Yes it is completely amoral but it does have moral implications for that very reason. It TEACHES amorality. It's a cop-out and a delusion to think otherwise.
You are extrapolating these moral implications - not science. Science teaches nothing about morality.
Faith writes:
"Testing" -- by science's standards, not by standards of humanity and sanity
”Testing’ in the simple sense of testing the outcome of an abstinence curriculum.
How would you propose it be tested without collecting some quantitative data?
Faith writes:
I am drawing the intelligent inference from your words
You are drawing only selective inferences that fit your predetermined perspective - as usual.
Faith writes:
it can't happen as long as Science Rules the thinking of everybody.
Listen to what you are saying, Faith. First off, oh that that were true, but I can’t think of a single country in the world where it is less likely to be true at the moment. Second, you are now blaming science for the failure of the abstinence program? Science predicted it wouldn’t work, and now it is ensuring it was a self-fulfilling prophesy? You can’t believe that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 05-16-2006 12:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 05-16-2006 5:10 PM EZscience has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 77 of 306 (312534)
05-16-2006 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by EZscience
05-16-2006 1:30 PM


Re: Science is getting too big for its britches
Oh wow, I'm not up to answering all that right now. What a bunch of misconceptions is right. I'll just say this much, we inhabit two different universes. I don't think one word of what you said actually connected even minimally with anything of what I was saying.
When Science arrives at its Scientifically Processed Assessment of what is Fact versus Fantasy it then makes dogmatic pronouncements as if it *knows* them to be true
Once again, you are talking about science as an entity which it isn’t. You have to level that accusation at scientists.
You seem to completely miss that I'm talking about YOUR OWN LANGUAGE AND CONCEPTS, which are TYPICAL of Science talk {edit:-- that is, the worldview and attitude that are present in YOUR OWN WORDS -- that in fact apparently make it impossible for you to get one thing I said because you are so in the science box you can't process anything from outside it. Or something like that.}
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : edit indicated in text.
Edited by Faith, : grammar correction

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by EZscience, posted 05-16-2006 1:30 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by EZscience, posted 05-16-2006 9:21 PM Faith has replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 78 of 306 (312608)
05-16-2006 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Faith
05-16-2006 5:10 PM


Re: Science is getting too big for its britches
NWOAR
(not worthy of a response)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 05-16-2006 5:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 05-16-2006 9:29 PM EZscience has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 79 of 306 (312611)
05-16-2006 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by EZscience
05-16-2006 9:21 PM


Re: Science is getting too big for its britches
NWOAR yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by EZscience, posted 05-16-2006 9:21 PM EZscience has not replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 80 of 306 (312628)
05-16-2006 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Faith
05-16-2006 8:25 AM


Re: More evidence of the Failure of Abstinence programs.
The humble attitude would be to consider that even though you personally don't believe it and don't have a way to verify any of it, that those of us who believe in a supernatural realm and a universal supernatural Moral Law might know something you don't, and at least hold out the possibility that you are wrong and we righ
No, that would be the stupid attitude. Why should I consider the possibility of the patently ridiculous?
Here are some facts that are harsh. but true:
- Some people are smarter than others
- Some poeple are more educated than others
- These people tend not to believe in ridiculous bullshit
ABE: Not all opinions are equal. There is a reason that we have experts on subjects....
I just don't understand why you feel you can rant and rave about science when you CLEARLY don't have a clue about what it even is. Most grade schoolers have a better understanding of basic science.
Edited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 05-16-2006 8:25 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 05-17-2006 12:55 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 81 of 306 (312650)
05-17-2006 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
05-16-2006 10:25 PM


Couldn't tell educated by SNC
Most grade schoolers certainly have a better grasp of plain civility and correct debate than you. You seem to have a chronic inability to address the topic, preferring to go the cheap and low class route of personal attack. Didn't your mama teach you manners?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 05-16-2006 10:25 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by CK, posted 05-17-2006 7:39 AM Faith has not replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 306 (312709)
05-17-2006 7:15 AM


Stay on topic
STOP

Now folk (you know who you are), let's avoid the personal comments and stay focussed on the topic.


CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 83 of 306 (312715)
05-17-2006 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Faith
05-17-2006 12:55 AM


A clear explaination of position.
I think the problem is that most people here cannot actually work out what it is you are advocating beyond "follow god".
Let's try and get some clarity into the debate.
1) You would agree or diagree that in their current state and in the current social context that abstinece only programs have failed?
2) Depending on your answer to (1) - what would you suggest is the way forward from the position of sex-education provision?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 05-17-2006 12:55 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by EZscience, posted 05-17-2006 9:51 AM CK has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 84 of 306 (312760)
05-17-2006 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by CK
05-17-2006 7:39 AM


Re: A clear explanation of position.
Yes. And keep in mind that, as Ned has pointed out, we are not saying don't include recommendations regarding abstinence in a sex education program - only that it should not be relied on exclusively and to the exclusion of other information pertaining to the mechanics of human sexuality. Abstinence can still be recommended, but it cannot be relied on to be effective by itself. It's mindless idiocy to think that it can, but then mindless idiocy seems to dominate the policy of our current dictatorship and their fascist supporters on all fronts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by CK, posted 05-17-2006 7:39 AM CK has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 85 of 306 (312779)
05-17-2006 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Faith
05-16-2006 1:46 AM


MORALS
Faith writes:
Well, what you are proposing is what is going to be done anyway. The culture isn't going to change back overnight. But if people keep saying "moralizing doesn't work" it CERTAINLY isn't going to change. Young people like to think philosophically, idealistically and morally. No reason why it couldn't work if people could get their heads together about it.
But I'm sure people are going to keep saying that it doesn't work. Nobody really gets why it's a moral issue any more.
Even if we decide to base this discussion in a moral point of view, your position is still lacking.
You are advocating that the government stay the course in a program that has been shown to hurt young people for the personal satisfaction of having your personal beliefs validated by said program paid by the taxpayers money. If you think you have the moral higher ground in that subject, think again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 05-16-2006 1:46 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by CK, posted 05-17-2006 10:48 AM fallacycop has not replied
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 05-17-2006 11:27 AM fallacycop has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 86 of 306 (312781)
05-17-2006 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by fallacycop
05-17-2006 10:41 AM


3rd clarification question
That leads me to a 3rd area for clarification - what are the moral principles that Faith feels need to be in place?
EDIT: I should add the reason for that question. I am assuming
that Faith will mention the importance of marriage. However the important of marriage is a religious or cultural thing isn't it (mainly) ? not a moral one?
Edited by CK, : Clarification of importance of question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by fallacycop, posted 05-17-2006 10:41 AM fallacycop has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by jar, posted 05-17-2006 11:10 AM CK has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 87 of 306 (312792)
05-17-2006 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by CK
05-17-2006 10:48 AM


Re: 3rd clarification question
Marriage has almost always been a contractual institution. There is almost no moral base for marriage.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by CK, posted 05-17-2006 10:48 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by CK, posted 05-17-2006 11:14 AM jar has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 88 of 306 (312795)
05-17-2006 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by jar
05-17-2006 11:10 AM


Marriage - contractual basis
Yes that's a better way to put it.
Maybe a better way to phrase it is
"If the promotion of marriage is an important part of this program*, then what is the moral basis for such a stance?**
* Sex-education
** Again I'm making the assumption that faith wants a program that has a certain number of moral principles at it's core

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by jar, posted 05-17-2006 11:10 AM jar has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 89 of 306 (312796)
05-17-2006 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by fallacycop
05-17-2006 10:41 AM


Re: MORALS
You are advocating that the government stay the course in a program that has been shown to hurt young people for the personal satisfaction of having your personal beliefs validated by said program paid by the taxpayers money. If you think you have the moral higher ground in that subject, think again.
Shown to hurt young people? Oh, you mean you teach them that abstinence is the right policy and they ignore you and your policy and have the problems you told them they'd avoid by practicing abstinence and that's "hurting young people?"
You guys are a riot.
As for what I advocate, I haven't advocated anything, I've been objecting to casting the problem in "scientific" as opposed to moral terms, and to the scientific mentality as such that deals with everything instrumentally and mechanically and ends up supporting an amoral position -- and to my mind actually inhumane. Perhaps this concern is too general for this thread. I think I'll consider starting a new thread on the subject, later today when I have more time.
Edited by Faith, : to add bolds
Edited by Faith, : to change "propose(d)" to "advocate(d)" and phrase ending "inhumane"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by fallacycop, posted 05-17-2006 10:41 AM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by CK, posted 05-17-2006 12:00 PM Faith has replied
 Message 119 by fallacycop, posted 05-17-2006 10:16 PM Faith has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 90 of 306 (312809)
05-17-2006 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
05-17-2006 11:27 AM


Re: MORALS
If you don't want to advocate anything - I'm not sure what more there is to discuss?
That's the end of the thread, no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 05-17-2006 11:27 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Faith, posted 05-17-2006 12:05 PM CK has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024