The Political Discussion Thread

[Giantevilhead]

you keep providing all these theories and very little fact....in this case a theory that even rejects the fact that the very act of thinking and learning and making decisions requires that a rational nature be present....animals have no rational nature.....this is evident in the fact that they don't think much......they're driven by instinct alone...they don't think...they DO....and they don't car e overmuch about the consequences of their actions.....us humans, however, are quite different...we have the capacity for thinking and reasoning...and to use this rational part of us to guide our actions....think before doing in other words and should we make a bad choice we are fully aware of the consequences of those bad decisions and can even express various emotional responses towards the consequences of our bad decisions

I mentioned plenty of experiments that support what I'm saying.

You don't seem to understand what I've been trying to say. I never said that humans don't think. I said that simply thinking does mean anything unless it's actually backed up by behavior. Look at Darley and Batson's "Good Samaritan" experiment. They recruited seminary students for the study. They told half the participants to give a sermon on job opportunities and half the participants to give a sermon on the story of the Good Samaritan. The experimenters introduced a situation where the participants would meet a person slumped in an alleyway on their way to the sermon. There was no significant difference in the number of participants who stopped to help between the two groups. The only thing that had an effect was the amount of time the participants had. About 2/3rds of the participants who were not in a hurry helped, about half of the participants who were kind of hurry helped, but only 1/10th of the people who were in high hurry helped. If thinking was an important factor then why didn't more of the seminary students who were supposed to give the sermon on the Good Samaritan help the person?

That was just one experiment that shows how the situation can override thinking.

love your sweeping generalizations too...like the one that says all humans are incapable of resisting temptation and compulsion....so my ability to resist the compulsion to drink and smoke to excess (Lord knows I've been tempted plenty of times to resort to it) is a figment of my imagination then?

also love your assertion that since pigeons....who are driven by instinct alone....perform certain behaviors....that human beings....a vastly different species from the one the pigeon occupies.......must operate in like fashion

good to know that your opinion of the human race is that we're no better than animals

Did you miss the part where I drew comparisons between animal and human behavior?

Also, I never said that humans are incapable of resisting temptations. People have to be taught to resist temptation.

And if you knew anything about behaviorism, you would know that even creatures as lowly as pigeons and rats can be conditioned to resist temptation and control their own behavior. Another famous (former) behaviorist named David Premack taught pigeons to control how much food they ate. Basically, he put a pigeon in a Skinner box where the pigeon could peck at a disk to get food whenever it wanted but he added another disk that the pigeon could peck to turn off the food giving disk. He conditioned the pigeon to peck the the disk that stopped food dispensing before it even got full. Through conditioning, Premack taught pigeons to control their instinct to eat. You can denigrate animals all you want but the fact is that you can teach animals to go against their compulsions and resist temptation, and those same methods can be applied to humans. Heck, those methods are applied to humans, you just don't know enough about psychology to see when they're being used.

[Naonak]

you keep providing all these theories and very little fact....

Compared to your argument that sex is a "gift"?

[shipper hannah]

and again it's the mentality that using our sexual gifts in ways they weren't meant to be used does not constitute abuse that causes abstinence to not take hold.....these kids need to be taught the self-control we are all capable of as human beings

using something in a way not in accordance with the original design of that something is abuse of that something and it's something I will repeat for as long as it takes to sink in

You can repeat it for as long as you want, but I will never agree with your belief that having sex before marriage is in any possible way a kind of abuse. It would be fruitless to teach abstinence-only sex ed because of the fact that most people do not have such puritanical views about sex.

[VampyreWraith]

If you're parents were Catholics then they weren't very good ones if they forgot such basic teachings regarding marriage, where St. Paul said "Wives be submissive to your husbands, husbands love your wives as Christ loves His Church....the submission he talked about was not the fearful submission of slave to tyrant no matter what, but the loving and willing submission of oneself to legitimate authority...and for husbands to love their wives as Christ loves His Church.....that enjoins husbands to exercise the legitimate and loving authority deriving from Christ in his household....so definitely not a good example of a truly Catholic family

They were catholic, but my dad wasn't really a practicing one. My mom was the more religous one. People don't always paractice what the preach. They weren't bad people, but they were bad parents. They really didn't know much better; and even if someone knows what the right thing doesn't mean that they will do the right thing, especially if their enviorment or past experiences doesn't support that. My mom had it pretty bad when she was a child. Her father was violent and crazy(in a clinical way) It's quite complicated. They wanted to be good parents(especially my mom) but they really didn't know what that meant. My mom was a virgin when she was married at 28, she worked hard, she went to church, she gives to charities. She told me that the main reason she actually married my father was to get away from her father. My mother and I do somewhat get along now. It's complicated, and I don't think life and how people act/react to things are ever really simple.

I agree...so really it does stem back to low self esteem and a behavior problem in children...just like with drugs or any other types of "acting out" behaviors. That is why there is an increased incidence with "cutting" or self injurious/reckless behaviors these days as well. I think rather than try and force sex ed in the schools....what would be more meaningful IMO would be a very good mentor system or focusing on trying to give these kids emotional support and some type of outreach program. I know this is hard because the kids and parents both have to agree to it and many times these kids from dysfunctional homes cannot get their parents on board to help them so yeah then it really does become a moot issue. So it wouldn't matter what you were teaching these kids are just simply at risk period and to me there is just no easy fix for that.

With me, most of my acting out actually started(or got worse) right after high school. High school itself, for the most part, was a good thing, mostly because I had a few friends and I could talk to them. My closest friends went away for college, I stayed local, and I ended up feeling really alone my first yr of college. I didn't really have the support system I had in high school anymore and I had to deal with all the home stuff. I've never done drugs, and I've never been drunk. The only time I ever drink is to toast someone at a wedding(or other event) I don't like the taste of alcohol, and even a little bit gives me a headache. I was almost 19 the first time I had sex. I graduated high school with straight A's, and a semester's worth of college credits. Things got very complicated after high school lol.

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

...
what this tells me is it is SO Important for sex education to come from the FAMILY and for the FAMILY to monitor such sex education. I think as such there was a "marginal" success with a comprehensive sex ed program with respect to reducing the likelihood of teens becoming sexually active. All this proves is the kids who may have been in the Comprehesive sex ed programs may have reported less teen pregnancy but they were still doing it...yeah cuz they were probably getting the free condoms that the schools were handing out *sigh*

It's great if sex education comes from the family, but just from this thread alone, it shows that there is a wide variety of views regarding sex and healthy behaviour. I shudder to think of what some are teaching their kids, and I'm sure they'd feel the same about me. At least in class, we can be sure that everyone gets a baseline of information. As for the bolded, would it be preferable that they not use condoms, and thereby get pregnant and spread disease? Why would this be preferable?

Why exactly should religious worldview preclude sex education?

God made it pretty damn clear that we are expected- and encouraged- to "go forth and multiply". It so happens that multiplying requires having sex, so children SHOULD know how it's done, and ESPECIALLY if you want to discourage them from doing it. You can't maintain a prohibition without explaining what exactly it is that you're prohibiting. Plus you need to make sure that by the time they reach marriage-eligible age, they actually know what to do on the wedding night.

On top of that, the annoying quality of many STDs is that sex is only one of the ways they can be transmitted. So even if you want your son to get married to his high school sweetheart and live monogamously ever after, you still need to teach him about safe sex and STDs. It is always better to know than to not know.

One could argue that the emphasis of sex education should be on teaching kids to control their sexual urges, and that position certainly has merit. Psychological experiments have shown that in the aroused state, people are much more willing to engage in the kind of sexual behavior that they consider risky or repulsive when in a calm state of mind, so for someone who doesn't consciously intend to have sex the best solution is avoiding arriving to that point in the first place. But no one is perfect and no training is foolproof, so relying on abstinence education alone isn't going to cut it. It has to be both, not either/or.

Control of sexual urges is great, as would be control of lots of other urges as well. Hell, a good deal of raising kids is getting them to control a lot of their urges - like fighting and the like. We don't tell them fighting, or whatever else, doesn't exist. We teach them where it's appropriate to fight, or channel that into sports, or even teach them to fight, so they don't have to fight. For example, of course. What we don't do is treat fighting like it doesn't exist as long as we cover our ears and lalala and pretend it doesn't exist. As for the religious aspect, why should all of us be held to a narrow religious definition?

So would you guys swim in a pool of caramel?

Only if I could do it safely and knew all the risks ahead of time

It would be nice if teens could get good sex ed at home, but as you just highlighted, many children don't. It's the responsibility of the education system to ensure that children are properly informed about sex, contraception, pregnancy, STDs.



That's my point, if didn't matter whether they had abstinence-only or comprehensive sex education, teens had sex either way. All the studies I cited that found that teaching about contraception was not linked to increase in sexual activity compared to no sex ed and abstinence-only sex ed.

I really am concerned about what some kids learn at home, given some of the things I've seen here and elsewhere. It makes me sad when I think of what they come away with. All studies do seem to point to the fact that abstinence only education doesn't work, that it in fact contributes to teen pregnancy and the spread of STI's.

Not everyone believes that teens having sex is 'abusive'.

I know I don't. I do think that not teaching kids about something that could be so life altering is abusive however, sort of like choosing not to teach kids that fire isn't hot.

I take offence to the suggestion that having sex outside of marriage is acting like a wild animal. Marriage doesn't mean the same to everyone. I'm not religious: marriage does not mean the same to me that it does to you.

I second that offence.

In my opinion is irresponsible not to teach children about contraceptives, given that the evidence suggests that they will be sexually active, and simple common sense to have condoms freely available.

Agreed

Compared to your argument that sex is a "gift"?

touche

and if we do believe that sex is a gift, why should we not know about it? Why should we not only remain ignorant about it but ensure that our children are ignorant too? If sex is a gift from god, isn't it an offence to treat it like it's shameful? Doesn't that shame and ignorance spit in the face of god, if that's what you believe?

[jmoz]

Have to step in here to say something about human rationality. Human rationality revolves almost entirely around two things: immediate observations and cause/effect rationalizations. They can rationalize immediate observations with their senses. But Cause/effect rationalizations comes from the concept that the future will be like the past. However, there is no rationalization for that other than immediate observation. So our entire line of reasoning is a neat little cycle, circular reasoning. How rational.

[mad_gater]

It's great if sex education comes from the family, but just from this thread alone, it shows that there is a wide variety of views regarding sex and healthy behaviour. I shudder to think of what some are teaching their kids, and I'm sure they'd feel the same about me. At least in class, we can be sure that everyone gets a baseline of information. As for the bolded, would it be preferable that they not use condoms, and thereby get pregnant and spread disease? Why would this be preferable?

Control of sexual urges is great, as would be control of lots of other urges as well. Hell, a good deal of raising kids is getting them to control a lot of their urges - like fighting and the like. We don't tell them fighting, or whatever else, doesn't exist. We teach them where it's appropriate to fight, or channel that into sports, or even teach them to fight, so they don't have to fight. For example, of course. What we don't do is treat fighting like it doesn't exist as long as we cover our ears and lalala and pretend it doesn't exist. As for the religious aspect, why should all of us be held to a narrow religious definition?

Only if I could do it safely and knew all the risks ahead of time

I really am concerned about what some kids learn at home, given some of the things I've seen here and elsewhere. It makes me sad when I think of what they come away with. All studies do seem to point to the fact that abstinence only education doesn't work, that it in fact contributes to teen pregnancy and the spread of STI's.

I know I don't. I do think that not teaching kids about something that could be so life altering is abusive however, sort of like choosing not to teach kids that fire isn't hot.


I second that offence.


Agreed



touche

and if we do believe that sex is a gift, why should we not know about it? Why should we not only remain ignorant about it but ensure that our children are ignorant too? If sex is a gift from god, isn't it an offence to treat it like it's shameful? Doesn't that shame and ignorance spit in the face of god, if that's what you believe?

what I believe is that sex is a gift that is meant to be used in wise, ethical, and controlled ways...much like the example of kids fighting you mentioned....you said that we teach them the appropriate times to fight ,basically teaching them how to determine when to fight becomes your last resort to defend yourself and others...same with sex....it's a gift that is meant to be used only during appropriate times...any other use of the gift is a highly irresponsible one

[Ukko]

what I believe is that sex is a gift that is meant to be used in wise, ethical, and controlled ways...much like the example of kids fighting you mentioned....you said that we teach them the appropriate times to fight ,basically teaching them how to determine when to fight becomes your last resort to defend yourself and others...same with sex....it's a gift that is meant to be used only during appropriate times...any other use of the gift is a highly irresponsible one

What are these appropriate times?

[jmoz]

Everyone loves a gift, lol. What are you guys even fighting about anymore?

[squirrely1]

Spoiler:

Actually, I simplified the process a bit. If you think about exercising and then you perform a behavior that's completely unrelated to exercising and that behavior is reinforced then thoughts about exercising will just lead to that other behavior rather than exercising.

Contingency, or even perceived contingency between behavior and consequence is what conditions behavior. In fact, Skinner did an experiment where he gave a pigeon food every 5 minutes regardless of its behavior. After a while, the pigeon developed a rather complex set of behaviors where it flapped its wings and danced around before the food was delivered. Its behavior had no effect on whether or not the food was delivered but it just happened to perform some random behavior right before the food was delivered and that was the behavior that got conditioned. You can see this in humans too. How many times do people press the button to call the elevator or the walk signal buttons when crossing the street? What do people do after they've thrown that bowling ball and they're waiting for it to hit those pins? Why do people have good lucky charms or rituals? You only need to press that elevator button once and that pressing it 10 more times isn't going to make it come down faster. You have no control over the bowling ball after it leaves your hand. There's no correlation between having a good luck charm and actually experiencing good luck. Even people who know these things cannot resist these compulsions. People know that sitting around, watching television, and eating chips is bad for them but that doesn't change their behavior because that behavior has been reinforced too much. Teens know that they shouldn't capitulate to peer pressure but again, that behavior has been reinforced too much.



Ironic that you would accuse me of basing my arguments on Freud when your reasoning matches his much more closely. Your argument is also similar to Freud's in that you have no evidence to back any of it up.

As for human's rational nature, look up Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance. Humans may rationalize their actions but they are not actually rational.

But really you are talking more about conditioned behaviors and to a certain extent there are some "knee jerk" type of conditioned responses that people will give in a certain situation...like the ones you cited. But I'm speaking more about long term habitual or addicting behaviors that are not so much conditioned responses but they are behaviors that people consciously engage in. In other words they want to or willingly choose to engage in that behavior for some reason. Or it is more of an emotional response type of behavior instead of the conditioned behaviors you are speaking about.

Spoiler:

They were catholic, but my dad wasn't really a practicing one. My mom was the more religous one. People don't always paractice what the preach. They weren't bad people, but they were bad parents. They really didn't know much better; and even if someone knows what the right thing doesn't mean that they will do the right thing, especially if their enviorment or past experiences doesn't support that. My mom had it pretty bad when she was a child. Her father was violent and crazy(in a clinical way) It's quite complicated. They wanted to be good parents(especially my mom) but they really didn't know what that meant. My mom was a virgin when she was married at 28, she worked hard, she went to church, she gives to charities. She told me that the main reason she actually married my father was to get away from her father. My mother and I do somewhat get along now. It's complicated, and I don't think life and how people act/react to things are ever really simple.



With me, most of my acting out actually started(or got worse) right after high school. High school itself, for the most part, was a good thing, mostly because I had a few friends and I could talk to them. My closest friends went away for college, I stayed local, and I ended up feeling really alone my first yr of college. I didn't really have the support system I had in high school anymore and I had to deal with all the home stuff. I've never done drugs, and I've never been drunk. The only time I ever drink is to toast someone at a wedding(or other event) I don't like the taste of alcohol, and even a little bit gives me a headache. I was almost 19 the first time I had sex. I graduated high school with straight A's, and a semester's worth of college credits. Things got very complicated after high school lol.

WOW well then you did quite well IMO. My situation was much different in that my acting out did start quite young early in high school and my mom and dad divorced so my mom became a work a holic. She would work 12 to 14 hour days and then when she came home she would sleep so she was pretty non existent in my life from about the age of 11 on. So I basically raised myself from that point on in my life. So yeah it was very hard, cuz she never remarried and I guess she felt that making money was her only primary concern for me. If it weren't for my HS counselors jumping through all the red tape hoops and such I would have never gone to college....cuz with my counselors help I got a few grants and scholarships which did give me an opportunity to attend otherwise I have no idea how I would have ended up. So I was very fortunate I had a great counselor who helped me.

Spoiler:

It's great if sex education comes from the family, but just from this thread alone, it shows that there is a wide variety of views regarding sex and healthy behaviour. I shudder to think of what some are teaching their kids, and I'm sure they'd feel the same about me. At least in class, we can be sure that everyone gets a baseline of information. As for the bolded, would it be preferable that they not use condoms, and thereby get pregnant and spread disease? Why would this be preferable?

Control of sexual urges is great, as would be control of lots of other urges as well. Hell, a good deal of raising kids is getting them to control a lot of their urges - like fighting and the like. We don't tell them fighting, or whatever else, doesn't exist. We teach them where it's appropriate to fight, or channel that into sports, or even teach them to fight, so they don't have to fight. For example, of course. What we don't do is treat fighting like it doesn't exist as long as we cover our ears and lalala and pretend it doesn't exist. As for the religious aspect, why should all of us be held to a narrow religious definition?

Only if I could do it safely and knew all the risks ahead of time

I really am concerned about what some kids learn at home, given some of the things I've seen here and elsewhere. It makes me sad when I think of what they come away with. All studies do seem to point to the fact that abstinence only education doesn't work, that it in fact contributes to teen pregnancy and the spread of STI's.

I know I don't. I do think that not teaching kids about something that could be so life altering is abusive however, sort of like choosing not to teach kids that fire isn't hot.


I second that offence.


Agreed



touche

and if we do believe that sex is a gift, why should we not know about it? Why should we not only remain ignorant about it but ensure that our children are ignorant too? If sex is a gift from god, isn't it an offence to treat it like it's shameful? Doesn't that shame and ignorance spit in the face of god, if that's what you believe?

Yeah I understand where you are coming from about sex ed coming from that family...yeah in a perfect world there would be no more unwanted teen pregnancies or STD's and such....but that's not the case. My biggest point here and has always been that I don't really care if a school offers a comprehensive sex ed course....HOWEVER I think it should be an elective course that the students can opt for and the parents need to approve. Because I just feel with sex ed there are too many cultural and religious differences amongst people for there to be any "One size fits all education" for everyone. Everyone has their own ideas of how they want their child taught so yeah I'm just all for getting the parents involved and not FORCING the "one size fits all" sex ed program on everyone.

As for the pregnancy and STD's ....no of course that is not preferred....but kids need to realize that with their behaviors comes consequences. We as adults and parents cannot always save our children from their consequences. So like I said while it would be hard to see teen pregnancies continue or to see STD's happening....that sometimes is the only deterrent there may be for helping to control that behavior possibly and a way for kids to learn from their mistakes. IF kids know there is always going to be a safety net there to catch them when they fall then they will not worry about their behavior as much. It almost continues to breed that reckless behavior. I mean they are probably thinking...oh well I have this condom so I am protected and safe so I can do it. And if I get pregnant there is always abortion

[Giantevilhead]

But really you are talking more about conditioned behaviors and to a certain extent there are some "knee jerk" type of conditioned responses that people will give in a certain situation...like the ones you cited. But I'm speaking more about long term habitual or addicting behaviors that are not so much conditioned responses but they are behaviors that people consciously engage in. In other words they want to or willingly choose to engage in that behavior for some reason. Or it is more of an emotional response type of behavior instead of the conditioned behaviors you are speaking about.

Habits and addicting behaviors are a result of a long series of knee jerk reactions being reinforced. People are conditioned to go for the immediate gratification rather than wait for delayed gratification. Many of the behaviors that we want kids to engage in can be taught through conditioning. You can teach kids to delay gratification, you can teach them to persist in the face of adversity, you can teach them to respect other people, you can teach them self control, all using conditioning. In fact, you can teach all those attributes to animals through conditioning. Pigeons and rats, creatures with brains the size of walnuts, can be taught to resist hunger, sex drive, and even drug addiction. Skinner taught rats to press a lever over 700 times just to get one pellet of food. As I mentioned before, Premack taught pigeons to control their own appetite.

As for using cognitive or persuasive methods, I was harsh in saying that they are useless. They can be very effective but you run into a lot of problems when you have to deal with a large number of people. Here's a simple example, think of a number line and draw that number line. Do you draw it like this:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...
or like this:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
or do you draw it like this:
1 6
2 5 7
3 4

People have different ways of conceptualizing numbers as a result of their upbringing and occasionally due to their biology. This may not seem like a big deal but there are pretty significant differences between people who conceptualize a number line horizontally, vertically, and in a zig zag pattern, in their ability to handle numbers. People who conceptualize numbers vertically are better at seeing the relationship between numbers so they make fewer mistakes in figuring out which numbers are bigger or smaller than others. People who conceptualize numbers in a zig zag or some other strange pattern seem to be better at more abstract mathematical concepts but make more mistakes where their spatial conception of numbers is more convoluted. There are even differences between people who conceptualize numbers as being far apart and kids who conceptualize numbers as being close together.

This is an example of a rather small difference in how people think about a relatively objective concept that can lead to significant differences in performance. Now think about the differences in how people conceptualize more abstract concepts like love, respect, self control, empathy, compassion, etc. Think about how much greater the differences will be in terms of how those thoughts are translated into behaviors.

The point is this, you can teach people about self respect, self esteem, and self control, but those words and those thoughts lead to different behaviors in different people just like how the same numbers can lead to different internal representations in different people which results in differences in how well people deal with numbers. The degree to which you can generalize the cognition behavior link is limited. In order to make that kind of intervention effective, you would need a lot more one on one interaction and analysis. Not only would that require a lot more resources, it's just something you'll have a lot of trouble doing with the really troubled kids. The ones who are most likely to get into trouble probably are the most different compared to other people in terms of cognition behavior link.

Behavioral interventions have limitations too and can't be generalized to everyone but the degree to which they can be generalized is far greater than cognitive or persuasive interventions. Behavior is a function of consequences, that is true for almost everyone, it's even true to an extent for the severely mentally ill, the main difference is the magnitude of the effect and that's much easier to modify for individual cases.

[squirrely1]

Spoiler:

Habits and addicting behaviors are a result of a long series of knee jerk reactions being reinforced. People are conditioned to go for the immediate gratification rather than wait for delayed gratification. Many of the behaviors that we want kids to engage in can be taught through conditioning. You can teach kids to delay gratification, you can teach them to persist in the face of adversity, you can teach them to respect other people, you can teach them self control, all using conditioning. In fact, you can teach all those attributes to animals through conditioning. Pigeons and rats, creatures with brains the size of walnuts, can be taught to resist hunger, sex drive, and even drug addiction. Skinner taught rats to press a lever over 700 times just to get one pellet of food. As I mentioned before, Premack taught pigeons to control their own appetite.

As for using cognitive or persuasive methods, I was harsh in saying that they are useless. They can be very effective but you run into a lot of problems when you have to deal with a large number of people. Here's a simple example, think of a number line and draw that number line. Do you draw it like this:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...
or like this:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
or do you draw it like this:
1 6
2 5 7
3 4

People have different ways of conceptualizing numbers as a result of their upbringing and occasionally due to their biology. This may not seem like a big deal but there are pretty significant differences between people who conceptualize a number line horizontally, vertically, and in a zig zag pattern, in their ability to handle numbers. People who conceptualize numbers vertically are better at seeing the relationship between numbers so they make fewer mistakes in figuring out which numbers are bigger or smaller than others. People who conceptualize numbers in a zig zag or some other strange pattern seem to be better at more abstract mathematical concepts but make more mistakes where their spatial conception of numbers is more convoluted. There are even differences between people who conceptualize numbers as being far apart and kids who conceptualize numbers as being close together.

This is an example of a rather small difference in how people think about a relatively objective concept that can lead to significant differences in performance. Now think about the differences in how people conceptualize more abstract concepts like love, respect, self control, empathy, compassion, etc. Think about how much greater the differences will be in terms of how those thoughts are translated into behaviors.

The point is this, you can teach people about self respect, self esteem, and self control, but those words and those thoughts lead to different behaviors in different people just like how the same numbers can lead to different internal representations in different people which results in differences in how well people deal with numbers. The degree to which you can generalize the cognition behavior link is limited. In order to make that kind of intervention effective, you would need a lot more one on one interaction and analysis. Not only would that require a lot more resources, it's just something you'll have a lot of trouble doing with the really troubled kids. The ones who are most likely to get into trouble probably are the most different compared to other people in terms of cognition behavior link.

Behavioral interventions have limitations too and can't be generalized to everyone but the degree to which they can be generalized is far greater than cognitive or persuasive interventions. Behavior is a function of consequences, that is true for almost everyone, it's even true to an extent for the severely mentally ill, the main difference is the magnitude of the effect and that's much easier to modify for individual cases.

WOW all I can say is....Fascinating I mean really...thanks for taking the time in sharing that. I may wanna bug you on your wall or in PM about something just to get your thoughts on it

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

What are these appropriate times?

I think we're getting to the heart of that particular belief: CONTROL. Not self-control or personal choice but flat out control. Not signing up for that

..

Yeah I understand where you are coming from about sex ed coming from that family...yeah in a perfect world there would be no more unwanted teen pregnancies or STD's and such....but that's not the case. My biggest point here and has always been that I don't really care if a school offers a comprehensive sex ed course....HOWEVER I think it should be an elective course that the students can opt for and the parents need to approve. Because I just feel with sex ed there are too many cultural and religious differences amongst people for there to be any "One size fits all education" for everyone. Everyone has their own ideas of how they want their child taught so yeah I'm just all for getting the parents involved and not FORCING the "one size fits all" sex ed program on everyone.

As for the pregnancy and STD's ....no of course that is not preferred....but kids need to realize that with their behaviors comes consequences. We as adults and parents cannot always save our children from their consequences. So like I said while it would be hard to see teen pregnancies continue or to see STD's happening....that sometimes is the only deterrent there may be for helping to control that behavior possibly and a way for kids to learn from their mistakes. IF kids know there is always going to be a safety net there to catch them when they fall then they will not worry about their behavior as much. It almost continues to breed that reckless behavior. I mean they are probably thinking...oh well I have this condom so I am protected and safe so I can do it. And if I get pregnant there is always abortion

We don't live in a perfect world, which is why we also teach kids about strangers, bad touches, not to run out into the street and yeah, that sex comes with consequences too - here's what you can do about it. Like all the other things we teach kids, we don't teach them to stay inside so they never run into strangers, we don't teach them that no one is ever allowed to touch them, we don't teach them that they can never cross the street. Why not? Because we teach them the danger, tell them how to deal with it, and let the kids take care of themselves with the knowledge we give them. Why should sex be any different?

As for it being an elective course - okay, let's play with that. The parent says no. The child says yes. Who's voice matters? The one that wants to keep a child ignorant or the child - the one that has a right to know? At what point does a child's rights supersede a parent's? Currently, education isn't one size fits all, in that there are so many different kinds of schools, including home schooling, that it can't be claimed. But, with that kind of varied education, how can you be sure that children are getting the education they are entitled to? Testing them to see if they at least have a baseline. Or else you could end up with a situation where some folks decide that maybe teaching girls math and science and anything else they need isn't necessary (don't say that's never happened) or deciding that maybe little Black kids don't need to learn this that or the next thing.

How do they realize that their behaviour comes with consequences if they are never taught? And is that really how you want your kids to learn? That they have to get pregnant, get an STI, or possibly even die? Back to the other lessons we teach kids - do we let kids learn about traffic the hard way? By not telling them about cars and then sending them out into the street and when they get hit by a car - well, that's the consequence they suffer for something we never told them about in the first place? We don't do that because it would be insanely cruel. We wouldn't be doing our jobs as parents or as a society to allow that to continue. It's backwards thinking. Punishing children, and that's what you seem to be advocating, for something we've never taught them is cruel. Beyond cruel.

Now if those kids get the proper education about sex (like any other danger) and CHOOSE, knowing what they know, to contract an STI or engage in risky behaviour - that they know about - then yeah, that's serious business. But I'm fairly certain, given the statistics that have come up numerous times in this thread alone, that kids that get a decent sex education are LESS likely to suffer - and that's what it is, suffering - things like teen pregnancy, STI's and possibly AIDS/HIV. But we teach them first. The child has a right to know that. We don't have a right to keep them from learning.

[mad_gater]

I think we're getting to the heart of that particular belief: CONTROL. Not self-control or personal choice but flat out control. Not signing up for that



We don't live in a perfect world, which is why we also teach kids about strangers, bad touches, not to run out into the street and yeah, that sex comes with consequences too - here's what you can do about it. Like all the other things we teach kids, we don't teach them to stay inside so they never run into strangers, we don't teach them that no one is ever allowed to touch them, we don't teach them that they can never cross the street. Why not? Because we teach them the danger, tell them how to deal with it, and let the kids take care of themselves with the knowledge we give them. Why should sex be any different?

As for it being an elective course - okay, let's play with that. The parent says no. The child says yes. Who's voice matters? The one that wants to keep a child ignorant or the child - the one that has a right to know? At what point does a child's rights supersede a parent's? Currently, education isn't one size fits all, in that there are so many different kinds of schools, including home schooling, that it can't be claimed. But, with that kind of varied education, how can you be sure that children are getting the education they are entitled to? Testing them to see if they at least have a baseline. Or else you could end up with a situation where some folks decide that maybe teaching girls math and science and anything else they need isn't necessary (don't say that's never happened) or deciding that maybe little Black kids don't need to learn this that or the next thing.

How do they realize that their behaviour comes with consequences if they are never taught? And is that really how you want your kids to learn? That they have to get pregnant, get an STI, or possibly even die? Back to the other lessons we teach kids - do we let kids learn about traffic the hard way? By not telling them about cars and then sending them out into the street and when they get hit by a car - well, that's the consequence they suffer for something we never told them about in the first place? We don't do that because it would be insanely cruel. We wouldn't be doing our jobs as parents or as a society to allow that to continue. It's backwards thinking. Punishing children, and that's what you seem to be advocating, for something we've never taught them is cruel. Beyond cruel.

Now if those kids get the proper education about sex (like any other danger) and CHOOSE, knowing what they know, to contract an STI or engage in risky behaviour - that they know about - then yeah, that's serious business. But I'm fairly certain, given the statistics that have come up numerous times in this thread alone, that kids that get a decent sex education are LESS likely to suffer - and that's what it is, suffering - things like teen pregnancy, STI's and possibly AIDS/HIV. But we teach them first. The child has a right to know that. We don't have a right to keep them from learning.

none of which will mean a damn thing if we don't first teach our children how to love.....tht is what is missing from society and why we have so many problems.....yeah....teaching our kids that the appropriate time to use these gifts is to save yourself for the one you love and have made a covenant borne of this life-giving love before God, friends, and family with is so restrictive and confining.....*snort*.....riiiiiight....when in fact being able to control ourleves in such a way is our greatest gift of sexual freedom and liberty

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

none of which will mean a damn thing if we don't first teach our children how to love.....tht is what is missing from society and why we have so many problems.....yeah....teaching our kids that the appropriate time to use these gifts is to save yourself for the one you love and have made a covenant borne of this life-giving love before God, friends, and family with is so restrictive and confining.....*snort*.....riiiiiight....when in fact being able to control ourleves in such a way is our greatest gift of sexual freedom and liberty

Why is it automatically assumed that sex education isn't capable of talking about love and choosing the right time? Maybe it's the idea of choice that seems to get you so angry, that some would choose something you wouldn't? And why is it somehow linked to religion? I'm not a Christian, so why should I be held to its rules?